ArticleScientific data2022
Ultra-deep sequencing data from a liquid biopsy proficiency study demonstrating analytic validity.
Article in Scientific data, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor-naïve ctDNA detection with deep learning-enhanced error suppression for sensitive mutation calling.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Harmonising ctDNA Measurement in Haematological Malignancies: Traceability, Commutability and Reporting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comprehensive benchmarking of methods for mutation calling in circulating tumor DNA.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A Differential Depth Sequencing Method, SPRE-Seq, for Enhancing Targeted Region Coverage in Hybridization Capture-Based NGS.Engineering in life sciences · 2025Article
- Improvement of the sensitivity of circulating tumor DNA-based liquid biopsy: current approaches and future perspectives.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
- Targeted DNA-seq and RNA-seq of Reference Samples with Short-read and Long-read Sequencing.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Validation of a Molecular Diagnostic Test for Circulating Tumor DNA by Next-Gen Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of Oncomine Lung cfDNA Assay for Detection of PlasmaGenes · 2023Article
- Clinical application of liquid biopsy based on circulating tumor DNA in non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- Review
- Advanced Minimal Residual Disease Detection Using a Novel Circulating Tumor DNA Assay: A Report of Two Cases.Case reports in oncologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently we reported the accuracy and reproducibility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays using a unique set of reference materials, associated analytical framework, and suggested best practices. With the rapid adoption of ctDNA sequencing in precision oncology, it is critical to understand the analytical validity and technical limitations of this cutting-edge and medical-practice-changing technology. The SEQC2 Oncopanel Sequencing Working Group has developed a multi-site, cross-platform study design for evaluating the analytical performance of five industry-leading ctDNA assays. The study used tailor-made reference samples at various levels of input material to assess ctDNA sequencing across 12 participating clinical and research facilities. The generated dataset encompasses multiple key variables, including a broad range of mutation frequencies, sequencing coverage depth, DNA input quantity, etc. It is the most comprehensive public-facing dataset of its kind and provides valuable insights into ultra-deep ctDNA sequencing technology. Eventually the clinical utility of ctDNA assays is required and our proficiency study and corresponding dataset are needed steps towards this goal.
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.