ArticleNature medicine2026
Liquid biopsy for the diagnosis of EBV-positive Burkitt's lymphoma in endemic areas.
Article in Nature 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burkitt's lymphoma (BL) is common in sub-Saharan Africa, yet diagnosis is often delayed due to limited pathology capacity. Here we evaluated blood-based liquid biopsies from 377 children and young adults with clinically suspected lymphoma at four hospitals in Tanzania and Uganda, assessing diagnostic accuracy and turnaround time (TAT). After extensive pathology capacity building, a gold-standard diagnosis was established using tissue morphology, a limited validated immunohistochemistry panel and independent dual histopathologist review. Using clinical features and circulating tumor DNA markers (MYC mutations, MYC-immunoglobulin translocations and Epstein-Barr virus fragmentomics), we trained six penalized logistic regression models with tenfold crossvalidation (n = 212). The best-performing model was externally validated in a prospective real-world cohort (n = 56). Diagnostic accuracy, yield and TAT were compared head to head between liquid biopsy and the gold standard in 58 participants. The comprehensive model achieved the highest performance (area under the curve (AUC) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.901-0.981, sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.95), confirmed by external validation (AUC 0.98, 95% CI 0.942-1.000). Liquid biopsy was the only diagnostic result available at the multidisciplinary review in 42% of participants and reduced median diagnostic TAT from 46.8 d to 6.5 d (P = 4.42 × 10
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.