ArticleNature communications2025
Comprehensive benchmarking of methods for mutation calling in circulating tumor DNA.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detection of somatic mutations in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is challenging due to low variant allele frequencies and extensive DNA degradation. Here we develop a benchmarking strategy using longitudinal patient-matched cfDNA samples from individuals with colorectal and breast cancer. Samples with high and ultra-low levels of tumor-derived DNA are combined into controlled dilution series that preserve the properties of authentic cell-free DNA, including each patient's germline and blood-cell mutation backgrounds. Using deep whole-genome (150x) and exome (2,000x) sequencing, we define a reference set of ~37,000 single nucleotide variants and ~58,000 indels to benchmark nine somatic variant callers across varying ctDNA levels and sequencing depths. We also explore machine learning-based tuning of individual callers and identify features that improve accuracy in cfDNA. This benchmarking resource clarifies the detection limits of current approaches and provides practical guidance for selecting somatic variant calling methods in liquid biopsy applications.
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.