ArticleBiophysical journal2024
An accurate probabilistic step finder for time-series analysis.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mamba time series forecasting with uncertainty quantification.Machine learning: science and technology · 2025Article
- Machine learning tools advance biophysics.Biophysical journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Noisy time-series data-from various experiments, including Förster resonance energy transfer, patch clamp, and force spectroscopy, among others-are commonly analyzed with either hidden Markov models or step-finding algorithms, both of which detect discrete transitions. Hidden Markov models, including their extensions to infinite state spaces, inherently assume exponential-or technically geometric-holding time distributions, biasing step locations toward steps with geometric holding times, especially in sparse and/or noisy data. In contrast, existing step-finding algorithms, while free of this restraint, often rely on ad hoc metrics to penalize steps recovered in time traces (by using various information criteria) and otherwise rely on approximate greedy algorithms to identify putative global optima. Here, instead, we devise a robust and general probabilistic (Bayesian) step-finding tool that neither relies on ad hoc metrics to penalize step numbers nor assumes geometric holding times in each state. As the number of steps themselves in a time-series are a priori unknown, we treat these within a Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) paradigm. We find that the method developed, BNP Step (BNP-Step), accurately determines the number and location of transitions between discrete states without any assumed kinetic model and learns the emission distribution characteristic of each state. In doing so, we verify that BNP-Step can analyze sparser data sets containing higher noise and more closely spaced states than otherwise resolved by current state-of-the-art methods. What is more, BNP-Step rigorously propagates measurement uncertainty into uncertainty over state transition locations, numbers, and emission levels as characterized by the posterior. We demonstrate the performance of BNP-Step on both synthetic data as well as data drawn from force spectroscopy experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.