Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39129364›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Performance assessment of computational tools to detect microsatellite instability.

Harrison Anthony, Cathal Seoighe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

2 authors.

Harrison AnthonySchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Galway, Galway H91 TK33, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-7028-0170
Cathal SeoigheSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Galway, Galway H91 TK33, Ireland.

Funding

Science Foundation Ireland 18/CRT/6214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a phenomenon seen in several cancer types, which can be used as a biomarker to help guide immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. To facilitate this, researchers have developed computational tools to categorize samples as having high microsatellite instability, or as being microsatellite stable using next-generation sequencing data. Most of these tools were published with unclear scope and usage, and they have yet to be independently benchmarked. To address these issues, we assessed the performance of eight leading MSI tools across several unique datasets that encompass a wide variety of sequencing methods. While we were able to replicate the original findings of each tool on whole exome sequencing data, most tools had worse receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall area under the curve values on whole genome sequencing data. We also found that they lacked agreement with one another and with commercial MSI software on gene panel data, and that optimal threshold cut-offs vary by sequencing type. Lastly, we tested tools made specifically for RNA sequencing data and found they were outperformed by tools designed for use with DNA sequencing data. Out of all, two tools (MSIsensor2, MANTIS) performed well across nearly all datasets, but when all datasets were combined, their precision decreased. Our results caution that MSI tools can have much lower performance on datasets other than those on which they were originally evaluated, and in the case of RNA sequencing tools, can even perform poorly on the type of data for which they were created.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMicrosatellite InstabilitySoftwareExome SequencingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsbenchmarkingcancer biomarkermicrosatellite instability

Identifiers

PMID39129364
PMCPMC11317526

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.