ArticleScientific reports2021
Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Newborn Genomic Sequencing Needs Confirmation but Not Repeating.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Samples used in biomedical research are often collected over years, in some cases from subjects that may have died and thus cannot be retrieved in any way. The value of these samples is priceless. Sample misidentification or mix-up are unfortunately common problems in biomedical research and can eventually result in the publication of incorrect data. Here we have compared the Fluidigm SNPtrace and the Agena iPLEX Sample ID panels for the authentication of human genomic DNA samples. We have tested 14 pure samples and simulated their cross-contamination at different percentages (2%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50%). For both panels, we report call rate, allele intensity/probability score, performance in distinguishing pure samples and contaminated samples at different percentages, and sex typing. We show that both panels are reliable and efficient methods for sample authentication and we highlight their advantages and disadvantages. We believe that the data provided here is useful for sample authentication especially in biorepositories and core facility settings.
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.