ArticlePeerJ2018
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- User Guided Selection and Alignment of Sequence Data by GeneMatrix.Journal of molecular evolution · 2026Article
- Systematic multi-reference vertebrate ACE2 sequence similarity analysis predicts species susceptibility to SARS-related sarbecoviruses.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The macroevolutionary dynamics of pharyngognathy in fishes fail to support the key innovation hypothesis.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Phylogenetic analyses reveal bat communities in Northwestern Mexico harbor a high diversity of novel cryptic ectoparasite species.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Neogastropod (Mollusca, Gastropoda) phylogeny: A step forward with mitogenomes.Zoologica scripta · 2022Article
- Mitogenome of a stink worm (Annelida: Travisiidae) includes degenerate group II intron that is also found in five congeneric species.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Genome sequencing reveals extraordinary cephalic horns in the Madagascan dung beetle genusZooKeys · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDNA sequences are pivotal for a wide array of research in biology. Large sequence databases, like GenBank, provide an amazing resource to utilize DNA sequences for large scale analyses. However, many sequence records on GenBank contain more than one gene or are portions of genomes. Inconsistencies in the way genes are annotated and the numerous synonyms a single gene may be listed under provide major challenges for extracting large numbers of subsequences for comparative analysis across taxa. At present, there is no easy way to extract portions from many GenBank accessions based on annotations where gene names may vary extensively.
resultsThe R package
conclusionFASTA files of extracted subsequences and accession tables generated by
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.