Conventional diatom testing using strong acid: notable false-positive results caused by an underestimated contamination source (blind spot)

Author(s):  
Eiji Kakizaki ◽  
Norihiro Shinkawa ◽  
Ai Sonoda ◽  
Nobuhiro Yukawa
1974 ◽  
Vol 31 (02) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Kenneth K Wu ◽  
John C Hoak ◽  
Robert W Barnes ◽  
Stuart L Frankel

SummaryIn order to evaluate its daily variability and reliability, impedance phlebography was performed daily or on alternate days on 61 patients with deep vein thrombosis, of whom 47 also had 125I-fibrinogen uptake tests and 22 had radiographic venography. The results showed that impedance phlebography was highly variable and poorly reliable. False positive results were noted in 8 limbs (18%) and false negative results in 3 limbs (7%). Despite its being simple, rapid and noninvasive, its clinical usefulness is doubtful when performed according to the original method.


1995 ◽  
Vol 31 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Frahm ◽  
U. Obst

Two recently developed Legionella detection tests, a microbiological-immunological method based on monoclonal antibodies (carried out as a colony-blot assay) and a commercial gene-probe testkit (the EnvironAmp Legionella Kit), are compared with the standard method. The colony-blot assay is faster than the conventional method; the gene-probe test is much faster still and is the most sensitive, but in consequence is at greater risk of false-positive results.


Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1160
Author(s):  
Athina N. Markou ◽  
Stavroula Smilkou ◽  
Emilia Tsaroucha ◽  
Evi Lianidou

The presence of contaminating gDNA in RNA preparations is a frequent cause of false positives in RT-PCR-based analysis. However, in some cases, this cannot be avoided, especially when there are no exons–intron junctions in the lncRNA sequences. Due to the lack of exons in few of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and the lack of DNAse treatment step in most studies reported so far, serious questions are raised about the specificity of lncRNA detection and the potential of reporting false-positive results. We hypothesized that minute amounts of gDNA usually co-extracted with RNA could give false-positive signals since primers would specifically bind to gDNA due to the lack of junction. In the current study, we evaluated the effect of gDNA and other forms of DNA like extrachromosomal circular DNAs (eccDNAs) contamination and the importance of including a DNAse treatment step on lncRNAsexpression.As a model, we have chosen as one of the most widely studied lncRNAs in cancer namely MALAT1, which lacks exons. When we tested this hypothesis in plasma and primary tissue samples from NSCLC patients, our findings clearly indicated that results on MALAT1 expression are highly affected by the presence of DNA contamination and that the DNAse treatment step is absolutely necessary to avoid false positive results.


Author(s):  
Takahiro Takazono ◽  
Tomomi Saijo ◽  
Nobuyuki Ashizawa ◽  
Kazuhiro Oshima ◽  
Keitaro Nishimura ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 562-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Giner-Sorolla

The current crisis in psychological research involves issues of fraud, replication, publication bias, and false positive results. I argue that this crisis follows the failure of widely adopted solutions to psychology’s similar crisis of the 1970s. The untouched root cause is an information-economic one: Too many studies divided by too few publication outlets equals a bottleneck. Articles cannot pass through just by showing theoretical meaning and methodological rigor; their results must appear to support the hypothesis perfectly. Consequently, psychologists must master the art of presenting perfect-looking results just to survive in the profession. This favors aesthetic criteria of presentation in a way that harms science’s search for truth. Shallow standards of statistical perfection distort analyses and undermine the accuracy of cumulative data; narrative expectations encourage dishonesty about the relationship between results and hypotheses; criteria of novelty suppress replication attempts. Concerns about truth in research are emerging in other sciences and may eventually descend on our heads in the form of difficult and insensitive regulations. I suggest a more palatable solution: to open the bottleneck, putting structures in place to reward broader forms of information sharing beyond the exquisite art of present-day journal publication.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document