ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of pretreatment methods for filamentous fungal detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to obtain the best mass spectrometry identification results for using the most appropriate methods in clinical practice, we explore the optimal pretreatment methods for different species and morphologies of filamentous fungi. 98 fungal strains were treated with formic acid sandwich method, dispersion method, extraction method, and other methods using a medium element mass spectrometer (EXS3000) as a platform. Each strain had three targets, and the identification rates and confidence differences under different pre-treatment methods were compared to evaluate the identification effects of these methods. The mass spectrometry identification rates of 98 filamentous fungi obtained after pre-treatment with formic acid sandwich method, dispersion method, and extraction method were 85.71%, 82.65%, and 75.51%, respectively. The identification rate of the formic acid sandwich method was significantly higher than the other two methods (P < 0 005) has the best identification ability and the obtained confidence is also higher than the other two methods. The use of formic acid sandwich method for mass spectrometry identification of filamentous fungi can achieve ideal identification results, which is suitable for mass spectrometry identification of filamentous fungi in conventional laboratories.
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.