Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40353837›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025

GCfix: a fast and accurate fragment length-specific method for correcting GC bias in cell-free DNA.

Chowdhury Rafeed Rahman, Zhong Wee Poh, Anders Jacobsen Skanderup, Limsoon Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Chowdhury Rafeed RahmanGenome Institute of Singapore (GIS), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 138672, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-5481-8025
Zhong Wee PohGenome Institute of Singapore (GIS), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 138672, Singapore.
Anders Jacobsen SkanderupGenome Institute of Singapore (GIS), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 138672, Singapore.
Limsoon WongSchool of Computing, National University of Singapore, 117417, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1241-5441

Funding

Singapore Ministry of Health OFIRG21nov-0083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationCell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis has wide-ranging clinical applications due to its noninvasive nature. However, cfDNA fragmentomics and copy number analysis can be complicated by GC bias. There is a lack of GC correction software based on rigorous cfDNA GC bias analysis. Furthermore, there is no standardized metric for comparing GC bias correction methods across large sample sets, nor a rigorous experiment setup to demonstrate their effectiveness on cfDNA data at various coverage levels.

resultsWe present GCfix, a method for robust GC bias correction in cfDNA data across diverse coverages. Developed following an in-depth analysis of cfDNA GC bias at the region and fragment length levels, GCfix is both fast and accurate. It works on all reference genomes and generates correction factors, tagged BAM files, and corrected coverage tracks. We also introduce two orthogonal performance metrics for (i) comparing the fragment count density distribution of GC content between expected and corrected samples, and (ii) evaluating coverage profile improvement post-correction. GCfix outperforms existing cfDNA GC bias correction methods on these metrics. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: GCfix software and code for reproducing the figures are publicly accessible on GitHub: https://github.com/Rafeed-bot/GCfix_Software.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareAlgorithmsBase CompositionHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansCell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID40353837
PMCPMC12133280

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.