ArticlePeerJ2025
Comprehensive evaluation of methods for identifying tissues or cell types of origin of the plasma cell-free transcriptome.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rewriting the RNA code: an mFrontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plasma cell-free RNA (cfRNA) is derived from cells in various tissues and organs throughout the body and reflects the physiological and pathological conditions. Identifying the origins of cfRNA is essential for comprehending its variations. Only a few tools are designed for cfRNA deconvolution, and most studies have relied on traditional bulk RNA methods. In this study, we employed human tissue and cell transcriptomic data as reference sets and evaluated the performance of seven deconvolution methods on cfRNA. We compared the analysis results of cell types and tissues of origin of plasma cfRNA and chose to use single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data as reference to conduct further evaluation of deconvolution methods. Subsequently, we assessed the accuracy and robustness of the methods by utilizing simulated cfRNA data generated from scRNA-seq. We also evaluated the methods' accuracy on real plasma cfRNA data by analyzing the correlation between the predicted cell proportions and the corresponding clinical indicators. Moreover, we compared the methods' effectiveness in revealing the impacts of diseases on cells and evaluated the performance of cancer classification models based on the cell origin data they provided. In summary, our study provides valuable insights into cfRNA origin analysis, enhancing its potential in biomedical research.
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.