ArticleCancers2026
An Algorithmic Approach for Quantitative Determination of Microsatellite Status in NGS-Based Cancer Diagnostics.
Article in Cancers, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a transparent and adaptable methodological framework for the analysis of microsatellite status using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), addressing current limitations in clinical implementation.
methodsMicrosatellite status was assessed using NGS with a custom-designed panel. The approach was validated against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) results in a cohort of 32 patients with various tumor entities. A Python-based analysis pipeline was developed to process raw sequencing data and quantify mutational burden within microsatellite regions.
resultsThe proposed method demonstrated 100% concordance with PCR and 90.32% concordance with IHC results. The framework enabled quantitative assessment of microsatellite instability.
conclusionsThis proof-of-concept study demonstrates reliable determination of microsatellite status. The transparent and panel-adaptable framework offers flexibility for clinical implementation and provides a robust foundation for further validation in larger cohorts and across diverse tumor entities.
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.