Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33401773›Full record

ArticleGenes2021

4SpecID: Reference DNA Libraries Auditing and Annotation System for Forensic Applications.

Luís Neto, Nádia Pinto, Alberto Proença, António Amorim, Eduardo Conde-Sousa

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Luís NetoALGORITMI, Campus de Gualtar, University of Minho, Rua da Universidade, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.
Nádia PintoInstituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde (i3S), Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
Alberto ProençaALGORITMI, Campus de Gualtar, University of Minho, Rua da Universidade, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-6018-7346
António AmorimInstituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde (i3S), Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7518-6247
Eduardo Conde-SousaInstituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde (i3S), Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6591-5063

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic genetics is a fast-growing field that frequently requires DNA-based taxonomy, namely, when evidence are parts of specimens, often highly processed in food, potions, or ointments. Reference DNA-sequences libraries, such as BOLD or GenBank, are imperative tools for taxonomic assignment, particularly when morphology is inadequate for classification. The auditing and curation of these datasets require reliable mechanisms, preferably with automated data preprocessing. Software tools were developed to grade these datasets considering as primary criterion the number of records, which is not compliant with forensic standards, where the priority is validation from independent sources. Moreover, 4SpecID is an efficient software tool developed to audit and annotate reference libraries, specifically designed for forensic applications. Its intuitive user-friendly interface virtually accesses any database and includes specific data mining functions tuned for the widespread BOLD repositories. The built tool was evaluated in laptop MacBook and a dual-Xeon server with a large BOLD dataset (

Indexed as

Gene LibrarySoftwareAnimalsDatabases, Nucleic AcidDatasets as TopicDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicFelidaeForensic GeneticsMolecular Sequence AnnotationRuminantsbarcodingBOLD systemdatabase auditingDNAefficient softwareforensicsgeneticsspecies identificationtaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID33401773
PMCPMC7824288

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.