MIAME, we have a problem.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Exosomes as Novel Regulators of Adult Neurogenic Niches.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2015
   Review
2. Assessing the quality of annotations in asthma gene expression experiments.BMC bioinformatics · 2010
   Article
3. A white-box approach to microarray probe response characterization: the BaFL pipeline.BMC bioinformatics · 2009
   Article
4. Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses.Nature genetics · 2009
   Article
5. Domain-specific data sharing in neuroscience: what do we have to learn from each other?Neuroinformatics · 2008
   Review
6. Making a new technology work: the standardization and regulation of microarrays.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2007
   Review
7. Sharing and reusing gene expression profiling data in neuroscience.Neuroinformatics · 2007
   Review
8. NCBI GEO standards and services for microarray data.Nature biotechnology · 2006
   Article
9. Integration and mining of malaria molecular, functional and pharmacological data: how far are we from a chemogenomic knowledge space?Malaria journal · 2006
   Review
10. Data integration gets 'Sloppy'.Nature biotechnology · 2006
    Article
11. The end of the microarray Tower of Babel: will universal standards lead the way?Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2006
    Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to Shields: 'MIAME, we have a problem'.2006
• Comment on
  Inferential literacy for experimental high-throughput biology.2006
• Comment on
  Reliability and reproducibility issues in DNA microarray measurements.2006

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as