ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting high confidence ctDNA somatic variants with ensemble machine learning models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Narrative review: clinical application and challenges of circulating tumor DNA in treatment response evaluation and prognostic prediction for esophageal cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Improvement of the sensitivity of circulating tumor DNA-based liquid biopsy: current approaches and future perspectives.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a minimally invasive cancer biomarker that can be used to inform treatment of cancer patients. The utility of ctDNA as a cancer biomarker depends on the ability to accurately detect somatic variants associated with cancer. Accurate somatic variant detection in circulating cell free DNA (cfDNA) NGS data requires filtering strategies to remove germline variants, and NGS artifacts. Rule-based variant filtering methods either remove a substantial number of true positive ctDNA variants along with false variant calls or retain an implausibly large number of total variants. Machine Learning (ML) enables identification of complex patterns which may improve ability to distinguish between real somatic ctDNA variants and false positive calls. We built two Random Forest (RF) models for predicting high confidence somatic ctDNA variants in low and high depth cfDNA NGS data. Low depth models were fitted and evaluated on whole exome sequencing (WES) cfDNA data at depths of approximately 10X while the high depth data was sequenced at approximately 500X. Both models utilise a set of 15 features from variants detected by bcftools, FreeBayes, LoFreq and Mutect2. High confidence ground truth sets were obtained from matched tissue biopsy samples. We benchmarked our models against rule-based filtering with a set of hard, medium, and soft thresholds. Precision-recall curves showed the high depth model outperformed rule-based filtering at all thresholds in Test Data (PR-AUC 0.71). Partial dependence plots showed membership in the COSMIC database, absence from the dbSNP common variants database, and increasing read depth increased mean probability of high confidence somatic variant prediction in both models. Our results demonstrate the utility of supervised ML models for filtering variants in cfDNA data.
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.