ArticleNature methods2019
Publisher Correction: Nuclear pores as versatile reference standards for quantitative superresolution microscopy.
Article in Nature methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High-fidelity single-frame computational super-resolution using signal-preserving denoising-enabled deconvolution.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.
Identifiers
31653976What 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.