ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of automatic cell free DNA extraction metrics using different blood collection tubes.
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 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.
- Analysis of cell-free DNA in lymphomas: from sample collection to genotyping and minimal residual disease monitoring.Blood advances · 2026Review
- Circulating Cell-free DNA as a biomarker for radiation-induced injury: From mechanistic insights to clinical translation.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsy in malignant primary bone tumors: Clinical applications of circulating tumor DNA and circulating tumor cells for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment monitoring (Review).Oncology reports · 2026Review
- Decoding Brain Metastasis With Liquid Biopsy: Biomarkers and Technologies in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Circulating Cell-free DNA Fragmentomics Detection and Beyond.Aging and disease · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liquid biopsies and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis are used in numerous clinical applications. The amount of cfDNA is generally limited and many approaches require assessment of individual molecules. Optimized pre-analytical steps are therefore fundamental for accurate interpretation. Here, we established an automated extraction approach providing cfDNA of high yield and quality. We analyzed 649 blood plasma samples collected from 23 healthy individuals and assessed the performance of four different blood collection tubes, time between sampling and plasma isolation and number of centrifugation steps. CfDNA was quantified by fluorometric analysis and quantitative polymerase chain reaction, while contaminating cellular DNA was assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and parallel capillary electrophoresis. Data showed that cfDNA yield depends on both choice of blood collection tube and time between sampling and plasma isolation. Plasma isolated directly after sampling in K
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.