ArticleGenome medicine2026
Tumor-naïve ctDNA detection with deep learning-enhanced error suppression for sensitive mutation calling.
Article in Genome medicine, 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.
- Tumor-naïve ctDNA detection with deep learning-enhanced error suppression for sensitive mutation calling.Genome medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection offers minimally invasive monitoring of cancer from blood samples. While tumor-informed approaches are sensitive, their clinical application is limited by cost, tissue availability, and turnaround time. In contrast, tumor-naïve assays offer faster turnaround times and broader applicability, but often sacrifice sensitivity.
methodsHere, we developed DEEPctMUT, a computational pipeline for tumor-naïve ctDNA detection that integrates unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) with three complementary error-polishing strategies: (1) machine learning-based sequencing error suppression, (2) deep learning-based background noise filtering (DeepES), and (3) removal of clonal hematopoietic and germline variants using patient matched PBMC. We designed an efficient sequencing panel and developed and validated DEEPctMUT using cell lines, spike-in samples, healthy, and CRC plasma samples.
resultsDEEPctMUT accurately detected mutations down to 0.03% variant allele frequency (VAF), outperforming other tumor-naïve methods. In a head-to-head comparison, our pipeline identified pre-surgical CRC cases with 100% sensitivity, whereas the Roche Avenio Surveillance Kit achieved only 50% sensitivity. Furthermore, a panel-independent version of DEEPctMUT could improve the performance of Roche Avenio data without additional assay-specific training. We provide an extensive ground-truth dataset and make DEEPctMUT, including all trained models, available as an easy-to-use Nextflow pipeline.
conclusionsBy using advanced computational error-polishing techniques, DEEPctMUT can substantially reduce technical artifacts, allowing our tumor-naïve method to achieve a sensitivity comparable to tumor-informed approaches.
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.