ArticleArchives of toxicology2017
Evaluation of the automated MicroFlow
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- A multi-biomarker micronucleus assay using imaging flow cytometry.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
- Imaging flow cytometry: a primer.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022Article
- Inter-laboratory automation of the in vitro micronucleus assay using imaging flow cytometry and deep learning.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Multiple-endpoint in vitro carcinogenicity test in human cell line TK6 distinguishes carcinogens from non-carcinogens and highlights mechanisms of action.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- High-content imaging analyses of γH2AX-foci and micronuclei in TK6 cells elucidated genotoxicity of chemicals and their clastogenic/aneugenic mode of action.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2019Article
- Automation of the in vitro micronucleus assay using the ImagestreamCytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of manual microscopy for the scoring of chromosome damage in the in vitro micronucleus assay is often associated with user subjectivity. This level of subjectivity can be reduced by using automated platforms, which have added value of faster with high-throughput and multi-endpoint capabilities. However, there is a need to assess the reproducibility and sensitivity of these automated platforms compared with the gold standard of the manual scoring. The automated flow cytometry-based MicroFlow
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.