1-20 of 28768
Sort by
Image
Published: 05 May 2025
Fig. 3. Genomic landscape of cfDNA alterations. (A), Oncoplot of genomic alterations detected from plasma cfDNA. The data for each individual patient is displayed as a single vertical column, with samples grouped based on their cancer type. Colors indicate the highest OncoKB level alteration detected from e
Image
Published: 05 May 2025
Fig. 2. Clinical experience with the Oncomine Precision Assay together with the Genexus System. (A), Sequencing success rates for tissue and cfDNA genomic profiling ( n = 298, P = 1.96 × 10 −2 ). The P value was obtained from two-by-two Fisher exact test; (B), Distribution of the age of tissues that we
Journal Article
Hiu Ting Chan and others
Published: 05 May 2025
Image
Published: 05 May 2025
Fig. 1. Overview of the tumor genomic profiling analysis. Patients with advanced solid tumors and eligible for tissue tumor profiling were recruited for the study ( n = 298). The most recently retrieved FFPE tissue samples were submitted to Foundation Medicine for testing using the FoundationOne CDx compre
Image
Published: 05 May 2025
Fig. 4. Concordance of alterations between cfDNA and tissue. (A), Stacked bar graph showing concordance of 282 patients that had both tumor and cfDNA data available. Concordant patients (71.6%) are represented by the combined bottom and second segments of the bar, encompassing cases where no mutatioins were
Image
Published: 05 May 2025
Fig. 5. Correlation of clinical factors and mut-ctDNA detection. (A), Concordance rate of cfDNA genotyping relative to tissue genomic profiling by cancer type at patient level; (B), Comparison of lesion size by concordant detection of mutations from plasma and undetected from plasma or detected at VAF <0
Journal Article
Peter A Kavsak and others
Published: 02 May 2025
Journal Article
Kanagavel Murugesan and others
Published: 02 May 2025
Image
Published: 02 May 2025
Fig. 4. Within-subject BV of erythrocyte zinc protoporphyrin in participants with EPP and in healthy subjects. The figure displays median estimated personal within-subject BV (represented by squares for females and triangles for males) accompanied by their respective 95% credible intervals (depicted by hori
Journal Article
Paul Kjetel Soldal Lillemoen and others
Published: 02 May 2025
Image
Published: 02 May 2025
Fig. 1. Comparison of threshold cycle values for RBC-bound and plasma mitochondrial cfDNA in patients with and without bloodstream infection and tuberculosis. Mitochondrial ND1 Ct values are plotted for RBC and plasma samples in patients with bloodstream infection (BSI) and no BSI (A) and in patient with
Image
Published: 02 May 2025
Fig. 1. Individual mean values (represented by squares for females and triangles for males) and range (depicted by horizontal bars) of erythrocyte metal-free protoporphyrin in participants with EPP.
Image
Published: 02 May 2025
Fig. 2. Individual mean values (represented by squares for females and triangles for males) and range (depicted by horizontal bars) of erythrocyte zinc protoporphyrin in participants with EPP (solid bars) and in healthy subjects (dashed bars).
Image
Published: 02 May 2025
Fig. 1. Same lot of commercial QC measured between September 2022 through to February 2025 on 10 Abbott ARICHTECT analyzers (n = 9589 results with overall mean = 3.0 ng/L; pooled SD = 0.9 with range of SD: 0.4 to 1.3), 1 Ortho Vitros XT 7600 analyzer (n = 1407 results with overall mean = 4.68 ng/L; SD = 0.9
Image
Published: 02 May 2025
Fig. 3. Within-subject biological variation of erythrocyte metal-free protoporphyrin in participants with EPP. The figure displays median estimated personal within-subject BV (represented by squares for females and triangles for males) accompanied by their respective 95% credible intervals (depicted by hori
Journal Article
Aasne K Aarsand and others
Published: 29 April 2025
Journal Article
Patrick M Bossuyt
Published: 28 April 2025
Journal Article
Lisa K Peterson and others
Published: 25 April 2025
Image
Published: 25 April 2025
Fig. 1. Top flowchart is of CeD serology cascade. Numbers and percentages of tested patients grouped by TTG-IgA result ranges (FLU) are shown (arms A-D). Dotted boxes (DGP-IgA) indicate nonreportable results. Numbers/percentages of patients with elevated (≥5 FLU) within each arm are also shown on the graph.
Image
Published: 24 April 2025
Fig. 2. Accuracy assessment across sites. (A), Summary of assay performance measured by recall, precision, and F1 score; (B), Summary of false-positive results across laboratories; (C), False-positive microbes reported among 16 samples; (D), The top 15 false-positive microorganisms with the highest occurren