ReviewPathology oncology research : POR2024
Can long-read sequencing tackle the barriers, which the next-generation could not? A review.
Review in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-read sequencing for neurological disorders: opportunities, challenges, and future directions.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Long-read sequencing for cancer liquid biopsy: advancing precision oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Treatment outcomes and next-generation sequencing of a rare malignancy - urachal carcinoma: case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Oxford Nanopore Technologies [ONT] Sequencing: Clinical Validation in Genetically Heterogeneous Disorders.Genes · 2025Article
- Methodological Comparison of Short-Read and Long-Read Sequencing Methods on Colorectal Cancer Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Assessing a single-cell multi-omic analytic platform to characterizeFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The large-scale heterogeneity of genetic diseases necessitated the deeper examination of nucleotide sequence alterations enhancing the discovery of new targeted drug attack points. The appearance of new sequencing techniques was essential to get more interpretable genomic data. In contrast to the previous short-reads, longer lengths can provide a better insight into the potential health threatening genetic abnormalities. Long-reads offer more accurate variant identification and genome assembly methods, indicating advances in nucleotide deflect-related studies. In this review, we introduce the historical background of sequencing technologies and show their benefits and limits, as well. Furthermore, we highlight the differences between short- and long-read approaches, including their unique advances and difficulties in methodologies and evaluation. Additionally, we provide a detailed description of the corresponding bioinformatics and the current applications.
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.