ArticlePloS one2015
Obstructions to Sampling Qualitative Properties.
Article in PloS one, 2015. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSampling methods have proven to be a very efficient and intuitive method to understand properties of complicated spaces that cannot easily be computed using deterministic methods. Therefore, sampling methods became a popular tool in the applied sciences.
resultsHere, we show that sampling methods are not an appropriate tool to analyze qualitative properties of complicated spaces unless RP = NP. We illustrate these results on the example of the thermodynamically feasible flux space of genome-scale metabolic networks and show that with artificial centering hit and run (ACHR) not all reactions that can have variable flux rates are sampled with variables flux rates. In particular a uniform sample of the flux space would not sample the flux variabilities completely.
conclusionWe conclude that unless theoretical convergence results exist, qualitative results obtained from sampling methods should be considered with caution and if possible double checked using a deterministic method.
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.