ArticlePLoS biology2016
Authentication: A Standard Problem or a Problem of Standards?
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to the Comment on "Design, synthesis, anticancer activity and molecular docking of quinoline-based dihydrazone derivatives" by R. Weiskirchen,RSC advances · 2025Article
- Synthetic living materials in cancer biology.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2023Article
- Article
- Genetic Characterization of Rat Hepatic Stellate Cell Line HSC-T6 for In Vitro Cell Line Authentication.Cells · 2022Article
- Misidentified biomedical resources: Journal guidelines are not a quick fix.International journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Ethical Challenges Using Human Tumor Cell Lines in Cancer Research.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.Journal of neuroscience research · 2019Article
- Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2019Article
- Rationalized Development of a Campus-Wide Cell Line Dataset for Implementation in the Biobank LIMS System at Bioresource Center Ghent.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.Brain and behavior · 2019Article
- Semi-automated fact-checking of nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical research publications: The Seek & Blastn tool.PloS one · 2019Article
- Interlaboratory study to validate a STR profiling method for intraspecies identification of mouse cell lines.PloS one · 2019Article
- Analysis of public RNA-sequencing data reveals biological consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cell line populations.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Incorrect cell line validation and verification.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- The ghosts of HeLa: How cell line misidentification contaminates the scientific literature.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility and transparency in biomedical sciences have been called into question, and scientists have been found wanting as a result. Putting aside deliberate fraud, there is evidence that a major contributor to lack of reproducibility is insufficient quality assurance of reagents used in preclinical research. Cell lines are widely used in biomedical research to understand fundamental biological processes and disease states, yet most researchers do not perform a simple, affordable test to authenticate these key resources. Here, we provide a synopsis of the problems we face and how standards can contribute to an achievable solution.
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.