A reason to click with vague connection to the body is not naturally deceptive.
It's how all titles work. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" doesn't tell you terribly much about the book either, but if you read the previous book you know shit's gonna hit the fan.
A title intentionally leaves out the details because they want you to read the body, that has and will always be the purpose of a title.
Clickbait on the other hand is a title that actively seeks to get people to click where the title isn't connected to the body but the body is just an expansion of the title or not simply something entirely different. (see: any content from BuzzFeed)
> A title intentionally leaves out the details because they want you to read the body, that has and will always be the purpose of a title.
But the purpose of an article should be to inform the reader, not to get them to read the article. A title should reflect the content so I can make an informed decision on wether or not this particular item is relevant to my interests instead of trick me into reading it.
An article can be both engaging and informing, in fact, I would argue that an engaging and informative article is better than a purely informative article since more people read it.
A good title should enable you to make that decision but ultimately it's intention is to engage not inform, it's too short to inform. A title is NOT a reflection of the article.
If you aren't interested in genetic disease and/or don't have one and/or aren't interested in rare diseases, you can easily not read this article.
But the article isn't about the disease, it's about the struggle for diagnosis. What disease she eventually turned out to be diagnosed with is almost an afterthought inn the article, despite what the original title implies.
So clickbait, in other words intentionally deceptive.