 So, I'm preaching a little bit to the choir, but we all know about the benefits of engaging our patients and their families as a network. Of course it improves outcomes for them and for us, it facilitates research. And I think as we think of a second phase, it would broaden the UDN mission considerably. There are some already in-process patient and family engagement activities that have been ongoing within the UDN. The Coordinating Center has been very active in this. One of those is cell phenotyping through Genome Connect, where the patient goes in and enters their information. And there is an initiative to see how that matches up with the physician phenotyping, to see if there's a relationship between that and ultimately the diagnosis, how that relates to their getting a diagnosis. There's also an initiative led by Matt Mite, who some of you may know who's a very good parent advocate with the Coordinating Center to create patient pages of families who may have a rare diagnosis or a candidate gene, and they want to reach out through the use of social media, the Internet, those kinds of things to facilitate identification of other patients and families. So above and beyond that, are there things that we should be thinking about as a network? Well, what are the challenges in broadening our family and patient engagement? One thing that I find is, as a pediatrician and a clinical geneticist, is not all patients and families are equally equipped to partner actively with the UDN. And I think those of us who see patients know that for a fact, whether it's due to lack of education, resources, time, or even have the psychosocial bandwidth to engage equally is hard. So are there things that we need to do that could facilitate all of these families if they want to being as equally engaged as some of the families would? One of the arguments that could be made is, having a one-time evaluation with us as a network at a site may not lend itself to developing a long-term relationship with these patients and families. I know we have ongoing contact in terms of communicating research findings, re-contacting a year later, but maybe the relationship is not as close as them being followed by the referring physician in their hometown. I have a counter to that, but that's certainly a consideration. Same thing with the geographic distance. If a family is coming from Florida to see as a Duke, how feasible is it for us to have frequent interactions with them? We obviously can't bring them back all the time. And sometimes physicians and clinicians have different priorities and families. We are excited about the science. Just making an esoteric diagnosis gives us a thrill and we're happy we've done that. But families really are looking for much more than that. And for them, it might be just one step in this long path that they've been taking. So we need to kind of reconcile those differences. Well, there are certainly many opportunities, much more than the challenges I believe. There are certain unique aspects of the UDN that we can capitalize upon. We all know that our patients, probably more than many other networks, have huge psychosocial and financial burdens that they carry when they come to see us. And even after our evaluations. Because they have these rare and undiagnosed diseases and the burden is huge. How can we engage them to help improve those outcomes? The one-week patient evaluation is actually a very intensive experience. I have found in my own experience, I probably spent about 10 hours per family during that five-day visit. And some counselors probably spent twice that. And as Bill alluded to, their nurse practitioners have a lot of contact with these families. It's a very intensive process, and it probably helps in fostering close ties very quickly. And as somebody else said, a lot of patients tell us for the first time somebody actually listened to me, where I told my whole story. So those are very potent and empowering experiences for families. We also are a network. And just like any network, we can come together on certain patient-friendly engagement issues, or we can choose to do things a little differently from one side to another. Both can yield very valuable data for us as we move forward. A few ideas and points that we can discuss further. I think as a first step, we really need to formally assess more than what we've been doing informally. What are families and patients' insights? What are their needs as they come into the UDN? What would they like us to do? And I think really what we really need to understand as a network is, and I think most of us do, establishing a diagnosis really does not end the odyssey for these families. We did a small study at Duke that's outside the UDN, where we retrospectively interviewed 20 families that had had a child that had gone through this odyssey. Some had had a diagnosis. Some did not have a diagnosis after whole exam sequencing. We found a lot of the usual things that we would predict. But one important finding, I think, was that was a little surprising, but really not so when I think about it, is a diagnosis of an ultra rare disorder actually led to a sense of further isolation and frustration for some of the families. About 20% of the families that got a diagnosis actually said they felt very alone. One mother called it as it was just a gene that you gave me. They couldn't connect to others. And as we all know, we are all social creatures, and families who have a child with a rare disease or a diagnosed disease really want to reach out to somebody else. They want to be part of a community. We had one mother in our series who didn't get a diagnosis for her child. She ultimately became member of the charge support group because she felt she needed some community. And her child had some overlapping features of charge. So she adopted a community. So I think we need to be kind of thinking about those kinds of needs for our families before we get into this next phase. And I think the ultimate goal would be to develop an equal partnership with the families and the professionals. Some ideas that I wanted to throw out that we could potentially do now or think for the next phases. I talked about families who are not as well-equipped to be equal partners. Maybe we need to have a mentorship program where some families who are extremely savvy and can do this would mentor other families. Matt might is doing a little bit of that in terms of the patient pages. But maybe it needs to be more broad. It needs to be broader. How do you advocate for your child, for example? How do you reach out to somebody else that you may not be aware is working on your child's condition, that sort of thing? Should we consider having a family representative on our steering committee? Maybe on a rotating basis, have that person give us input on a regular basis? Should we have periodic webinars, conferences for patients and families so they can connect to one another, they can voice their ideas? This can be an educational resource. We all talked about unequal access. There are so many families out there who may not have the way with all to access us. Maybe there's outreach that can be done through this media. And I think we need to use whatever patient and family feedback we get from any method for further engagement with them. And also, should we talk about long-term engagement beyond the diagnosis, even for those that get a diagnosis and obviously for those who do not get a diagnosis? And I think that's all I had. Thank you very much.