ArticleCell systems2018
Evaluation of Hansen et al.: Nuance Is Crucial in Comparisons of Noise.
Article in Cell systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-cell RNA sequencing algorithms underestimate changes in transcriptional noise compared to single-molecule RNA imaging.Cell reports methods · 2024Article
- Quantitative comparison of single-cell RNA sequencing versus single-molecule RNA imaging for quantifying transcriptional noise.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One snapshot of the peer review process for "Cytoplasmic Amplification of Transcriptional Noise Generates Substantial Cell-to-Cell Variability" (Hansen et al., 2018).
Indexed as
Identifiers
30359620What 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.