ArticleIUCrJ2026
Round robin on structure analysis from 3D electron diffraction data.
Article in IUCrJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best practices in `0 K' DFT energy calculations on molecular crystal structures.Acta crystallographica. Section C, Structural chemistry · 2026Article
- Crystal structure determination of an FeActa crystallographica. Section E, Crystallographic communications · 2026Article
- 3D ED: Accessible, robust and accurate.IUCrJ · 2026Article
- 3D Electron Diffraction on Nanoparticles: Minimal Size and Associated Dynamical Effects.ACS nano · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
3D electron diffraction (3D ED) has undergone impressive development in the last decade. However, its accuracy and reproducibility have never been tested, up to now, in different laboratories on the same batch of samples. This paper reports a round robin on three test structures, two inorganic and one organic, solved and refined with 3D ED in seven different laboratories employing different transmission electron microscopes, with different acceleration voltages, different methodologies and different detectors. The results of the round robin show a remarkable accuracy of the technique that, in the case of kinematical refinement, is around 0.05 Å error on atomic positions for the inorganic samples and 0.15 Å for the beam-sensitive organic crystal. Dynamical refinement further improves the accuracy. The analysis of diverse samples and numerous data sets again confirms that dynamical refinement is a well established procedure, significantly reducing the refinement R factors, improving the accuracy of the structure models in most cases, and providing fine structural details, such as hydrogen-atom positions and the absolute structure, for both inorganic and organic samples.
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.