ArticleBiophysical reviews2021
Biophysical reviews top five: atomic force microscopy in biophysics.
Article in Biophysical reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical measures for achieving greater alignment between scientific practice and meaningful research output.Biophysical reviews · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Biophysical reviews-providing an effective critique.Biophysical reviews · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since its invention in the late 1980s, atomic force microscopy (AFM), in which a nanometer-sized tip is used to physically interrogate the properties of a surface at high resolution, has brought about scientific revolutions in both surface science and biological physics. In response to a request from the journal, I have prepared a top-five list of scientific papers that I feel represent truly landmark developments in the use of AFM in the biophysics field. This selection is necessarily limited by number (just five) and subjective (my opinion) and I offer my apologies to those not appearing in this list.
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.