ArticleAdvanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.)2024
RETRACTION: High-Resolution Imaging of Human Viruses in Liquid Droplets.
Article in Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.), 2024. 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.
- Liquid Phase Biological Electron Microscopy: Many Published Results and Claimed Benefits Are Fantasy, Not Fact.Microscopy and microanalysis : the official journal of Microscopy Society of America, Microbeam Analysis Society, Microscopical Society of Canada · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction of
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
retractionG. M. Jonaid, W. J. Dearnaley, M. A. Casasanta, L. Kaylor, S. Berry, M. J. Dukes, M. S. Spilman, J. L. Gray and D. F. Kelly, "High-Resolution Imaging of Human Viruses in Liquid Droplets," Advanced Materials 33, no. 37 (2021): 2103221, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202103221. The above article, published online on 24 July 2021 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the author, M. S. Spilman; the journal Editors-in-Chief, Irem Bayindir-Buchhalter and Esther Levy; and Wiley-VCH GmbH. The retraction has been agreed upon following a thorough peer review process conducted by the author's institution, Penn State University. The peer review determined that there is no significant correlation between the EM map and the model at any resolution. Furthermore, the validation curves and the published curves significantly misrepresent the fit of models to EM maps. The authors did not provide their original research data, EM maps, and models included in the study, to justify their findings. As a result, the institution recommends the article be retracted. The editors of the journal agree with these findings as they are supported by their own independent investigation. The author, D.F. Kelly, disagrees with the retraction; G.M. Jonaid agrees with the retraction; the other authors were unavailable for comment.
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.