Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42433604›Full record

ArticleThe journal of liquid biopsy2026

Molecular sampling limits of ctDNA detection in clinical plasma samples.

Alexander Gamisch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of liquid biopsy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alexander GamischIndependent Researcher, Salzburg, 5020, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays are commonly described by fixed variant allele fraction (VAF)-based limits of detection. However, such metrics overlook a fundamental constraint: the finite number of analyzable DNA molecules in an individual plasma sample. As a result, nominal assay sensitivity may overestimate what is physically achievable in routine clinical specimens. Genome-equivalent (GE) distributions from three independent liquid-biopsy cohorts comprising 5238 plasma samples were integrated with a Poisson-based sampling model to estimate input-limited detectability for single-locus variants. For each sample, the lower limit of detection was defined as the minimum VAF associated with a 95% probability of observing at least 1, 3, 5, or 10 mutant molecules. GE input varied widely (median 5531; interquartile range 2784-13,060). Detection at 1% VAF was theoretically achievable for nearly all samples, but performance declined sharply at lower VAFs and with increasing evidentiary thresholds. At 0.1% VAF, 72% of samples supported detection of at least one mutant molecule, compared with 46%, 35%, and 21% for thresholds of at least 3, 5, and 10 molecules. At 0.01% VAF, fewer than 10% of samples met any detection criterion. These findings indicate that many clinical plasma samples are unlikely to support reliable single-locus detection at very low VAFs, independent of assay design. Sample-aware interpretation of ctDNA results that accounts for molecular input is therefore warranted.

Indexed as

Cell-free DNACirculating tumor DNAGenome equivalentsLimit of detectionLiquid biopsyVariant allele fraction

Identifiers

PMID42433604
PMCPMC13351401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.