Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30182935›Full record

ArticleActa crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances2018

Estimating the structure factors in X-ray diffraction.

Paul F Fewster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Refuting `a new theory for X-ray diffraction' - a reciprocal-space approach.Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Response to Fraser & Wark's comments on A new theory for X-ray diffraction.Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paul F FewsterBrighton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article takes the concepts of the `new diffraction theory' [Fewster (2014). Acta Cryst. A70, 257-282] and examines the implications for the interpretation of experimental results and the estimation of structure factors. Further experimental evidence is included to justify the conclusions in the theory, showing that the residual intensity at twice the Bragg angle is a diffraction effect and not associated with the crystal shape. This `enhancement' effect is independent of whether kinematical or dynamical theories are applied and can lead to a clearer understanding of how the dynamical effects are suppressed in imperfect crystals. By applying the idea that the higher-order peaks are due to path lengths of nλ, it is shown that `systematically absent' reflections in the conventional theory may not be absent. Because this new theory considers the intensity to be more distributed, it suggests that the entire structure factor can be difficult to capture by experiment. This article suggests some routes to achieve a good approximation of the structure factors for typical methods of data collection. Any measurement of intensity with background removal will exclude some of the distributed intensity, again leading to an underestimate of the structure factors, and therefore the missing intensity needs to be estimated.

Indexed as

diffraction theoryimperfect crystalspowder diffractionserial crystallographystructure factors

Identifiers

PMID30182935
PMCPMC6123942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.