ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2015
Comparison of analytic methods for quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction data.
Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: Analytical considerations.Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2021Review
- Affine analysis for quantitative PCR measurements.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2020Article
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
Abstract
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a laboratory procedure to amplify and simultaneously quantify targeted DNA molecules, and then detect the product of the reaction at the end of all the amplification cycles. A more modern technique, real-time PCR, also known as quantitative PCR (qPCR), detects the product after each cycle of the progressing reaction by applying a specific fluorescence technique. The quantitative methods currently used to analyze qPCR data result in varying levels of estimation quality. This study compares the accuracy and precision of the estimation achieved by eight different models when applied to the same qPCR dataset. Also, the study evaluates a newly introduced data preprocessing approach, the taking-the-difference approach, and compares it to the currently used approach of subtracting the background fluorescence. The taking-the-difference method subtracts the fluorescence in the former cycle from that in the latter cycle to avoid estimating the background fluorescence. The results obtained from the eight models show that taking-the-difference is a better way to preprocess qPCR data compared to the original approach because of a reduction in the background estimation error. The results also show that weighted models are better than non-weighted models, and that the precision of the estimation achieved by the mixed models is slightly better than that achieved by the linear regression models.
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.