ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Establishing a single-cell RNA sequencing workflow using EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: No unified consensus exists regarding standardized protocols for single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis of samples obtained Methods: PDAC samples obtained Results: Compared with surgical resection-derived samples, EUS-FNA-derived samples showed lower transcript abundance and lower mitochondrial transcript percentages, while exhibiting comparable detected gene numbers, estimated doublet proportions, and ambient RNA contamination scores. These findings suggest that EUS-FNA-derived samples can generate analyzable single-cell transcriptomic profiles under the workflow used in this study. Differences in recovered cell-type composition were observed between sampling methods: EUS-FNA-derived samples showed relatively higher proportions of immune cells, whereas surgical resection-derived samples showed relatively higher recovery of several nonimmune cell populations. These differences may reflect both biological characteristics and sampling-related technical effects. Conclusions: This study supports the feasibility of scRNA-seq analysis using EUS-FNA-derived PDAC samples and suggests that EUS-FNA and surgical resection samples may provide complementary information. Further validation in larger, preferably paired prospective cohorts is warranted.
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.