Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41160707›Full record

ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2025

Tool Comparison for Detecting Tumour Cells in Endometrial Cancer via Single-Cell Copy Number Variations Analysis.

Erica Dugo, Francesco Piva, Matteo Giulietti, Luca Giannella, Andrea Ciavattini

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A multi-omics dissection of INHBAJournal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Erica DugoDepartment of Specialistic Clinical and Odontostomatological Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Francesco PivaDepartment of Specialistic Clinical and Odontostomatological Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1850-2482
Matteo GiuliettiDepartment of Specialistic Clinical and Odontostomatological Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Luca GiannellaGynecologic Section, Woman's Health Sciences Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Andrea CiavattiniGynecologic Section, Woman's Health Sciences Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Copy number variations (CNVs) are considered a hallmark of cancer and their inference from high-resolution single-cell transcriptome (scRNA-seq) analyses may offer great opportunities for the study of tumor heterogeneity. We compared the results of four major tools (SCEVAN, CopyKAT, InferCNV and sciCNV) that use inferred CNVs to predict endometrial cancer (EC) cells, in order to assess their reliability and offer useful suggestions to researchers to improve the accuracy of their predictions. In this study, we identified EC cells from publicly available scRNA-seq data using well-established EC biomarkers reported in the literature. SCEVAN and CopyKAT tools have moderate sensitivity, but significantly overestimate the true number of true EC tumour cells. However, a comparative analysis of the different tumour subclones revealed that a lower number of false positives can be obtained by selecting only those that contain a high percentage of epithelial cells. In contrast, InferCNV and sciCNV do not directly predict tumour cells, but rather infer CNVs and compute CNV scores. However, the score distribution curves of the CNV scores did not clearly distinguish between malignant and non-malignant cell populations, and therefore we were unable to evaluate the performance of either software. We highlight the lack of agreement between the tools and also towards the expected results. Our findings suggest exercising caution in the automated use of these tools. Until more accurate algorithms become available, we recommend filtering predictions ensuring that the necessary but not sufficient condition that the predicted tumour cells are at least epithelial is met.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDNA Copy Number VariationsEndometrial NeoplasmsSingle-Cell AnalysisBiomarkers, TumorFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansReproducibility of ResultsTranscriptomeBiomarkers, Tumorbiomarkerscopy number variations (CNVs)endometrial cancer (EC)epithelial cellssingle‐cell RNA transcriptome

Identifiers

PMID41160707
PMCPMC12571190

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.