ArticleMolecular oncology2026
Crucial parameters for precise copy number variation detection in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded solid cancer samples.
Article in Molecular oncology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Copy number variations (CNVs) play a crucial role in cancer diagnostics and prognostics, potentially impacting treatment decisions. Ultra-low-pass whole-genome sequencing (ULP-WGS) has emerged as a promising alternative to array-based methods for CNV detection, especially in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. However, sequencing biases and sample heterogeneity necessitate the optimization of CNV detection tools for FFPE sample-derived data. This study evaluates three open-source CNV callers (CNVpytor, ichorCNA, and WisecondorX) using ULP-WGS and compares their performance against a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Our results demonstrate that under optimal experimental conditions, ichorCNA and WisecondorX achieved equal detection of true positive results, with reduced false positive results compared to the SNP array. The SNP array detection pattern differed somewhat from that of the CNV callers, while ichorCNA and WisecondorX had the most comparable detection pattern. We highlight the importance of (pre-)analytical parameters such as neoplastic cell content, sequencing coverage, and bin size selection on CNV detection accuracy. Our findings support the adoption of ULP-WGS-based CNV detection as a robust alternative to SNP arrays, with WisecondorX emerging as the most suitable tool for clinical implementation.
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.