Cited by 541

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ancient DNA Damage

Dabney, J., Meyer, M., Paabo, S.·2013·Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/cshperspect.a012567

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ancient DNA fragments are typically ultrashort, often less than 100 bp.

    “Small amounts of preserved DNA and extensive DNA fragmentation to lengths <100 bp 109 pose serious challenges for extracting DNA molecules from ancient samples.”

    From Ancient DNA analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [109]

    The FRAGMENTATION section says that DNA from almost all ancient remains is degraded into short fragments, citing a range of 40–500 bp in an early study. It does not establish that fragments are typically shorter than 100 bp; the reported range extends well above that threshold. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Postmortem alterations potentially hinder manipulation of ancient DNA and reduce the amount of retrievable genetic information.

    “These postmortem alterations potentially hinder the manipulation of aDNA and reduce the amount of retrievable genetic information 109,120 .”

    From Ancient DNA analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [109]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Allentoft ME, Collins M, Harker D, Haile J, Oskam CL, Hale ML, Campos PF, Samaniego JA, Gilbert MTP, Willerslev E, et al. 2012. The half-life of DNA in bone: Measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils. Proc R Soc B doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1745. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dabney, J., Meyer, M., & Paabo, S.
Venue
Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology
Published
2013-05-31
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
a012567-a012567
ISSN
1943-0264
Cited by
541
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review