ArticleThe journal of liquid biopsy2024
Article in The journal of liquid biopsy, 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.
- The role of serologic biomarkers "liquid biopsy" in the fight against breast cancer: From biological foundations to clinical impact.iScience · 2026Review
- Proof of concept for aqueous two-phase system-based extraction of cell-free DNA from plasma for liquid biopsy applications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Liquid biopsy epigenetics: establishing a molecular profile based on cell-free DNA.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- Fragmentation signatures in cancer patients resemble those of patients with vascular or autoimmune diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The growing field of liquid biopsy and its Snowball effect on reshaping cancer management.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Review
- Cost-effective shallow genome-wide sequencing for profiling plasma cfDNA signatures to enhance lung cancer detection.Future oncology (London, England) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent studies have demonstrated differences between the fragment length profiles of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from cancer patients and healthy individuals. This has led to the development of Materials and methods: We used plasma samples from 35 stage III and IV lung cancer patients and performed targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and variant calling from cfDNA with and without size-selection of short fragments. We identified clonal hematopoiesis (CH) and germline mutations using targeted NGS on paired buffy coat (BC) samples. In addition, we performed a genome-wide copy-number alteration analysis on the cfDNA samples with and without size-selection. Results: ctDNA containing tumor mutations had a different fragment length profile compared to cfDNA fragments with CH or germline mutations. Conclusion: This study expands the knowledge regarding ctDNA fragmentation in lung cancer patients and we demonstrate that
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.