ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Ultra-sensitive molecular residual disease detection through whole genome sequencing with single-read error correction.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While whole genome sequencing (WGS) of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) holds enormous promise for molecular residual disease (MRD) detection, its performance is limited by WGS error rate. Here we introduce AccuScan, an efficient cfDNA WGS technology that enables genome-wide error correction at single read level, achieving an error rate of 4.2×10 One Sentence Summary: AccuScan showed remarkable ultra-low limit of detection with a short turnaround time, low sample requirement and a simple workflow for MRD detection.
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.