PubMed · 15484398
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
William Poole. 2004. Polonius' effect defective.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15484398/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: The Rare Disease Diagnostic Support Program in the Republic of Korea aims to improve early diagnosis and diagnostic yield for patients with rare diseases, particularly for those residing in non-metropolitan areas, by providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) services through regional medical institutions. This study evaluated the performance of the program, focusing on its clinical utility, including early diagnosis and treatment linkage, and its policy impact related to patient benefits. METHODS: From August 2024, WGS was performed on 410 patients with suspected rare diseases at 23 institutions outside the metropolitan area. A one-stop diagnostic pathway was established to perform sample collection, test referral, report delivery, and genetic counseling within a single clinical flow based on the patient’s location of residence. Sequencing was performed by external laboratories. RESULTS: Among the 410 patients, pathogenic variants were identified in 129 (31.5%), with a turnaround time of 28 days. Of those diagnosed, 78.2% received treatment benefits via national programs such as co-payment exemption and medical expense support programs. Approximately 30% of the patients were eligible for therapeutic intervention, particularly medication or dietary therapy. Family genetic testing of three members identified potential carriers or high-risk groups in 28 households (65.1%). Consent for secondary findings was 99.0%, with clinically significant variants found in 3.9% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The program demonstrated clinical value by improving diagnostic accessibility, reducing regional disparities, facilitating timely treatment, and supporting preventive care through family risk identification. These findings support the need for sustainable expansion of genome-based diagnostic services in the national health policy.
The assessment of relevance of toxicological testing was compared with approaches of diagnostic medicine, a discipline that faces a comparable situation. Considering the work of a toxicologist as setting a diagnosis for compounds, assessment tools for diagnostic tests were transferred to toxicological tests. In clinical diagnostics, test uncertainty is well accepted and incorporated in this assessment. Furthermore, prevalence information is considered to evaluate the gain in information resulting from the application of a test. Several common toxicological scenarios, in which test uncertainty and prevalence are combined, are discussed including the interdependence of test accuracy, prevalence and predictive values or the sequential application of a screening and a confirmatory test. In addition, real prevalences derived from prevalences determined by an imperfect test are presented. We conclude that information on prevalences of toxic health effects is required to allow a complete assessment of the relevance of toxicological test. In this process, lessons can be learned from evidence-based approaches in clinical diagnostics.