ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2026
Assessment of Potential Sources of Variability on the Analytical Performance of a Circulating Tumor DNA Minimal Residual Disease Test for B-Cell Lymphomas.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the robustness of circulating tumor DNA minimal residual disease (ctDNA-MRD) test results to common factors that could impact performance.
methodsDNA from three sample types is required: somatic, germline, and MRD monitoring. Different sample sources were evaluated for germline [whole blood, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs)] and somatic (pre-treatment plasma, tumor) samples. Extraction methods, common interfering substances, and DNA input mass were evaluated for impact on MRD determination. Each comparison was performed in isolation. Overall test variability was also evaluated.
resultsWhole blood and PBMCs were acceptable germline sample types, with minimal differences in identification of somatic variants. Both pre-treatment plasma and tumor were acceptable somatic sample types, achieving the same 95% hit rate of three mutant molecules. Agreement between results from different extraction methods and in the presence of interfering substances was 100%. Positive percent agreement (PPA) between results from DNA input masses above and below the test upper and lower limits decreased, though PPA was 100% between 4 ng and the lower limit (5 ng). Variance in test performance fell within acceptable ranges (coefficient of variation 4.95%-10.33%).
conclusionsMajor potential sources of variation and interference did not significantly impact ctDNA-MRD test performance.
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.