ArticleGigaScience2026
Comparative analysis of eccDNA and circRNA tools shows increased accuracy of tool combination.
Article in GigaScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of eccDNA and circRNA tools shows increased accuracy of tool combination.GigaScience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCircular nucleic acids such as extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) and circular RNA (circRNA) are increasingly recognized for their biological relevance and potential as biomarkers in disease contexts. Despite their growing importance, their detection remains challenging due to tool-specific biases, limited validation frameworks, and high variability in performance across datasets.
methodsWe benchmarked 10 circle detection tools across diverse conditions using both simulated and biological datasets. Our evaluation included classical performance metrics and a novel internal measure of read distribution symmetry ($\Delta$CJ) to assess circle prediction confidence. We explored the impact of sequencing protocols, filtering strategies, and combined tool consensus.
resultsWe found that detection accuracy was highly influenced by sequencing depth, alignment algorithm, and experimental enrichment protocols. $\Delta$CJ proved effective in flagging potential false positive circles, showing improved accuracy of Intersect (circles detected by all tools) and Rosette (circles detected by $\ge$2 tools) combinations. DISCUSSION: This study offers a broad evaluation of circular detection tools, suggesting that the combination of $\ge$3 tools is necessary for a correct prediction. These insights will inform future experimental design and data analysis pipelines in both experimental and clinical settings.
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.