ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2025
Tool Comparison for Detecting Tumour Cells in Endometrial Cancer via Single-Cell Copy Number Variations Analysis.
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.
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.
- A multi-omics dissection of INHBAJournal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Tool Comparison for Detecting Tumour Cells in Endometrial Cancer via Single-Cell Copy Number Variations Analysis.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.