ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Performance assessment of computational tools to detect microsatellite instability.
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.
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.
- Hunting for microsatellite instability in long-read data with Owl.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- EMMA-STRAT: a multi-omics based machine learning framework for stratification of endometrial carcinoma molecular subtypes and MSI status.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Intratumoral heterogeneity in microsatellite instability status at single-cell resolution.iScience · 2026Article
- An Algorithmic Approach for Quantitative Determination of Microsatellite Status in NGS-Based Cancer Diagnostics.Cancers · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Challenges and Clinical Implications of Microsatellite Instability/Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Solid Tumors.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Review
- Mutations in CREBBP and EP300 HAT and Bromo Domains Drive Hypermutation and Predict Survival in GI Cancers Treated with Immunotherapy.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.