ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
Application and evaluation of nanopore targeted sequencing in the detection of bacterial and fungal pathogens in leukemia bloodstream infections.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance and clinical impact of microbial nanopore-targeted sequencing (NTS) technology on pathogenic microorganisms in leukemia patients. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we recruited 206 patients to study the effectiveness of NTS in the identification of infectious pathogens. The detection performance of NTS was compared with that of blood culture (BC). Results: The positive rate of NTS was significantly higher than that of BC [62.62% (129/206 cases) vs. 3.88% (8/206 cases)]. Compared with BC, the positive and negative percentage agreement of NTS were 87.50% (95%CI: 47.35-99.68%), (7 of 8 cases) and 38.38% (95%CI: 31.52-45.60%), (76 of 198 cases), respectively. The sensitivity of NTS for diagnosing bloodstream infections was 65.32% (95%CI: 56.21-73.69%), (81/124), which was significantly higher than BC [6.45% (95%CI: 2.84-12.13%), (8/124)], Conclusion: NTS increases pathogen-detection yield but has low specificity and can be used as an adjunctive diagnostic method for leukemia BSI.
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.