ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Nanopore event detection in a simple and adaptive way.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nanopore read-out, that is the current signals measured across nanometer-sized openings in dielectric membranes or through natural protein channels, enables the detection, identification and sequencing of individual molecules. The detection can take place by analyzing the events of single biomolecules interacting with the pore. The accuracy in the detection of these single events is key for identification of physicochemical properties of analyte molecules. To this end, we further develop a very simple, fast, almost parameter-free, and adaptable cluster-based event detection (CBED) algorithm that clusters the nanopore signals prior to detecting nanopore events. The algorithm is validated against two other event detection schemes with respect to simplicity and efficiency. For this, nanopore data from four different experiments stemming from different laboratories that vary in the nanopore type, size, and analyte are considered. The comparison is made on the basis of the number of events detected, their quality, and the most important features extracted from nanopore events. Our results underline the higher efficiency and less noise of the CBED detected events for biological nanopore data and the need for an on-the-fly adaptivity of the baseline current for a class of solid-state nanopore data.
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.