ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
Evaluating Bioinformatics Processing of Somatic Variant Detection in cfDNA Using Targeted Sequencing with UMIs.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Clinical Utility of Cell-Free DNA in Brain Tumor Management: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2025Review
- Multi-Biofluid Approaches for cftDNA and cftRNA Biomarker Detection: Advances in Early Cancer Detection and Monitoring.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Genomic Insights into Tumorigenesis in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Circulating Tumor DNA in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Implications for Prognosis and Treatment Personalization.Cancers · 2025Review
- Exploring the Role of Cellular Interactions in the Colorectal Cancer Microenvironment.Journal of immunology research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising cancer biomarker, but accurately detecting tumor mutations in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is challenging due to their low frequency and sequencing errors. Our study benchmarked Mutect2, VarScan2, shearwater, and DREAMS-vc using deep targeted sequencing of cfDNA with Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) from 111 colorectal cancer patients. Performance was assessed at both the mutation level (distinguish tumor variants from errors) and the sample level (detect if an individual has cancer). Additionally, we investigated the effects of various UMI grouping and consensus strategies. The shearwater-AND variant calling method demonstrated the highest precision in detecting tumor-derived mutations from plasma, and reached the highest ROC-AUC of 0.984 for sample classification in tumor-informed cfDNA analyses. DREAMS-vc exhibited the highest ROC-AUC of 0.808 for sample classification in tumor-agnostic studies. We also found that sequencing depth differences in PBMCs could lead to false positives, particularly with VarScan2 and Mutect2, which was addressed by downsampling to equivalent mean depths. Additionally, network-based UMI grouping methods outperformed those using identical UMIs when all reads were retained. Our findings emphasize that the optimal variant caller depends on the study context-whether focused on mutation or sample classification, and whether conducted under tumor-informed or tumor-agnostic conditions.
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.