ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
An innovative fungal-specific targeted next-generation sequencing method: analytical performance and a single-center prospective clinical study.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 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.
- Case Report: Primary cutaneous infection caused byFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvasive pulmonary fungal infections (IPFIs) pose significant diagnostic challenges, particularly in immunocompromised patients. Accurate and timely diagnosis is crucial to improve outcomes. While metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is widely utilized, it is expensive and affected by host DNA interference. Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) offers a cost-effective and efficient alternative for fungal pathogen detection.
methodsWe developed the Fi-tNGS assay, a targeted next-generation sequencing method, specifically designed to detect 64 fungal species. Analytical performance was validated by assessing its limit of detection (LoD), reproducibility, and resistance to host DNA interference. Subsequently, a prospective clinical study was conducted, enrolling 104 patients with suspected IPFIs. Clinical diagnostic performance was evaluated by comparing Fi-tNGS, mNGS, and conventional microbial culture against a comprehensive diagnostic standard.
resultsFi-tNGS detected 109 pathogens, compared to 110 for mNGS and 77 for culture. The sensitivity and specificity of tNGS were 89.7% and 94.2%, respectively, outperforming culture (65.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity). Combining culture with tNGS or mNGS significantly improved sensitivity to 94.8% and 94.0%, respectively. These findings demonstrate the added diagnostic value of NGS methods for IPFIs.
conclusionstNGS provides accurate and efficient fungal pathogen detection, with sensitivity comparable to mNGS and superior to culture. Its cost-effectiveness and shorter turnaround time highlight its potential as a practical tool for the rapid and precise diagnosis of IPFIs in clinical settings.
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.