ArticleGates open research2025
Automated post-run analysis of arrayed quantitative PCR amplification curves using machine learning.
Article in Gates open research, 2025. 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.
- Quantification Revisited: What qPCR Efficiency Models Reveal About Data Analysis Integrity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
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
Background: The TaqMan Array Card (TAC) is an arrayed, high-throughput qPCR platform that can simultaneously detect multiple targets in a single reaction. However, the manual post-run analysis of TAC data is time consuming and subject to interpretation. We sought to automate the post-run analysis of TAC data using machine learning models. Methods: We used 165,214 qPCR amplification curves from two studies to train and test two eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models. Previous manual analyses of the amplification curves by experts in qPCR analysis were used as the gold standard. First, a classification model predicted whether amplification occurred or not, and if so, a second model predicted the cycle threshold (Ct) value. We used 5-fold cross-validation to tune the models and assessed performance using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and mean absolute error (MAE). For external validation, we used 1,472 reactions previously analyzed by 17 laboratory scientists as part of an external quality assessment for a multisite study. Results: In internal validation, the classification model achieved an accuracy of 0.996, sensitivity of 0.997, specificity of 0.993, PPV of 0.998, and NPV of 0.991. The Ct prediction model achieved a MAE of 0.590. In external validation, the automated analysis achieved an accuracy of 0.997 and a MAE of 0.611, and the automated analysis was more accurate than manual analyses by 14 of the 17 laboratory scientists. Conclusions: We automated the post-run analysis of highly-arrayed qPCR data using machine learning models with high accuracy in comparison to a manual gold standard. This approach has the potential to save time and improve reproducibility in laboratories using the TAC platform and other high-throughput qPCR approaches.
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.