Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34976309›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2022

Computational challenges in detection of cancer using cell-free DNA methylation.

Madhu Sharma, Rohit Kumar Verma, Sunil Kumar, Vibhor Kumar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Epigenetic Instability-Based Metrics in Cell-Free DNA for Early Cancer Detection.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Madhu SharmaDepartment for Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi 110020, India.
Rohit Kumar VermaDepartment for Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi 110020, India.
Sunil KumarDepartment of Surgical oncology, All India Institute of Medical sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Vibhor KumarDepartment for Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi 110020, India.
Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-free DNA(cfDNA) methylation profiling is considered promising and potentially reliable for liquid biopsy to study progress of diseases and develop reliable and consistent diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. There are several different mechanisms responsible for the release of cfDNA in blood plasma, and henceforth it can provide information regarding dynamic changes in the human body. Due to the fragmented nature, low concentration of cfDNA, and high background noise, there are several challenges in its analysis for regular use in diagnosis of cancer. Such challenges in the analysis of the methylation profile of cfDNA are further aggravated due to heterogeneity, biomarker sensitivity, platform biases, and batch effects. This review delineates the origin of cfDNA methylation, its profiling, and associated computational problems in analysis for diagnosis. Here we also contemplate upon the multi-marker approach to handle the scenario of cancer heterogeneity and explore the utility of markers for 5hmC based cfDNA methylation pattern. Further, we provide a critical overview of deconvolution and machine learning methods for cfDNA methylation analysis. Our review of current methods reveals the potential for further improvement in analysis strategies for detecting early cancer using cfDNA methylation.

Indexed as

Cancer heterogeneityCell free DNAcfDNA, cell free DNAComputationctDNA, circulating tumor DNAddMCP, droplet digital methylation-specific PCRddPCR, droplet digital polymerase chain reactionDiagnosisDMP, Differentially methylated base positionDMR, Differentially methylated regionsdPCR, digital polymerase chain reactionHELP-seq, HpaII-tiny fragment Enrichment by Ligation-mediated PCR sequencingMBD-seq, Methyl-CpG Binding Domain Protein Capture SequencingMCTA-seq, Methylated CpG tandems amplification and sequencingMeDIP-seq, Methylated DNA Immunoprecipitation SequencingMSCC, Methylation Sensitive Cut CountingMSRE, methylation sensitive restriction enzymesRRBS, Reduced-Representation Bisulfite SequencingscCGI, methylated CGIs at single cell levelWGBS, Whole Genome Bisulfite Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID34976309
PMCPMC8669313
OpenAlexW4200159165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.