ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2006
Analysis of single ion channel data incorporating time-interval omission and sampling.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2006. 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.
- MCMC estimation of Markov models for ion channels.Biophysical journal · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hidden Markov models are widely used to describe single channel currents from patch-clamp experiments. The inevitable anti-aliasing filter limits the time resolution of the measurements and therefore the standard hidden Markov model is not adequate anymore. The notion of time-interval omission has been introduced where brief events are not detected. The developed, exact solutions to this problem do not take into account that the measured intervals are limited by the sampling time. In this case the dead-time that specifies the minimal detectable interval length is not defined unambiguously. We show that a wrong choice of the dead-time leads to considerably biased estimates and present the appropriate equations to describe sampled data.
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.