ArticleBMC bioinformatics2009
Supervised learning for the automated transcription of spacer classification from spoligotype films.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2009. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMolecular genotyping of bacteria has revolutionized the study of tuberculosis epidemiology, yet these established laboratory techniques typically require subjective and laborious interpretation by trained professionals. In the context of a Tuberculosis Case Contact study in The Gambia we used a reverse hybridization laboratory assay called spoligotype analysis. To facilitate processing of spoligotype images we have developed tools and algorithms to automate the classification and transcription of these data directly to a database while allowing for manual editing.
resultsFeatures extracted from each of the 1849 spots on a spoligo film were classified using two supervised learning algorithms. A graphical user interface allows manual editing of the classification, before export to a database. The application was tested on ten films of differing quality and the results of the best classifier were compared to expert manual classification, giving a median correct classification rate of 98.1% (inter quartile range: 97.1% to 99.2%), with an automated processing time of less than 1 minute per film.
conclusionThe software implementation offers considerable time savings over manual processing whilst allowing expert editing of the automated classification. The automatic upload of the classification to a database reduces the chances of transcription errors.
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.