Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978416›Full record

ReviewBiomarker research2022

Current challenges and best practices for cell-free long RNA biomarker discovery.

Lluc Cabús, Julien Lagarde, Joao Curado, Esther Lizano, Jennifer Pérez-Boza

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomarker research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lluc CabúsInstitut de Biologia Evolutiva, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Julien LagardeFlomics Biotech, Barcelona, Spain.
Joao CuradoFlomics Biotech, Barcelona, Spain.
Esther LizanoInstitut de Biologia Evolutiva, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Jennifer Pérez-BozaFlomics Biotech, Barcelona, Spain. jennifer.perez@flomics.com.
Pompeu Fabra University · ES

Funding

Doctorats industrials 2019 DI 091Horizon 2020 Framework Programme ACE003/20/000028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The analysis of biomarkers in biological fluids, also known as liquid biopsies, is seen with great potential to diagnose complex diseases such as cancer with a high sensitivity and minimal invasiveness. Although it can target any biomolecule, most liquid biopsy studies have focused on circulating nucleic acids. Historically, studies have aimed at the detection of specific mutations on cell-free DNA (cfDNA), but recently, the study of cell-free RNA (cfRNA) has gained traction. Since 2020, a handful of cfDNA tests have been approved for therapy selection by the FDA, however, no cfRNA tests are approved to date. One of the main drawbacks in the field of RNA-based liquid biopsies is the low reproducibility of the results, often caused by technical and biological variability, a lack of standardized protocols and insufficient cohorts. In this review, we will identify the main challenges and biases introduced during the different stages of biomarker discovery in liquid biopsies with cfRNA and propose solutions to minimize them.

Indexed as

Cell-free RNAEarly diagnosisLiquid biopsiesLong RNARNA sequencingTechnical bias

Identifiers

PMID35978416
PMCPMC9385245
OpenAlexW4293065133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.