ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2021
Comparative analysis of target gene exon sequencing by cognitive technology using a next generation sequencing platform in patients with lung cancer.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Thorough Review of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Article
- The application of artificial intelligence in lung cancer: a narrative review.Translational cancer research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology is an increasingly important clinical tool for therapeutic decision-making. However, interpretation of NGS data presents challenges at the point of care, due to limitations in understanding the clinical importance of gene variants and efficiently translating results into actionable information for the clinician. The present study compared two approaches for annotating and reporting actionable genes and gene mutations from tumor samples: The traditional approach of manual curation, annotation and reporting using an experienced molecular tumor bioinformationist; and a cloud-based cognitive technology, with the goal to detect gene mutations of potential significance in Chinese patients with lung cancer. Data from 285 gene-targeted exon sequencing previously conducted on 115 patient tissue samples between 2014 and 2016 and subsequently manually annotated and evaluated by the Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute (GLCI) research team were analyzed by the Watson for Genomics (WfG) cognitive genomics technology. A comparative analysis of the annotation results of the two methods was conducted to identify quantitative and qualitative differences in the mutations generated. The complete congruence rate of annotation results between WfG analysis and the GLCI bioinformatician was 43.48%. In 65 (56.52%) samples, WfG analysis identified and interpreted, on average, 1.54 more mutation sites in each sample than the manual GLCI review. These mutation sites were located on 27 genes, including
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.