trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Pan-assay interference compounds disrupt biological assays

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that Pan-assay interference compounds disrupt biological assays?

Yes. Pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS) and frequent hitters are widely recognized in high-throughput screening for generating false positives and disrupting biological assays through nonspecific mechanisms.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The claim states that pan-assay interference compounds disrupt biological assays. The retrieved literature includes studies like [11], which specifically characterizes PAINS as nuisance compounds that interfere with biochemical or cell-based assays and generate misleading signals, and [0], which examines frequent hitters in high-throughput screening. Thus, the evidence directly supports the claim.

Evidence for · 2
Statistical models for identifying frequent hitters in high throughput screening
2020
Get citation
Goodwin, S., Shahtahmassebi, G., & Hanley, Q. S. (2020). Statistical models for identifying frequent hitters in high throughput screening. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74139-0

See more details
More for · 1
Deep learning for assay nuisance compound detection using a gated co-attention graph embedding model (CAGE-Fusion).
2026
Get citation
S, R., S, P., SJ, B., K, B., & JC, S. (2026). Deep learning for assay nuisance compound detection using a gated co-attention graph embedding model (CAGE-Fusion).. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-026-01207-4

What does the evidence say?

The claim states that pan-assay interference compounds disrupt biological assays. The retrieved literature includes studies like [11], which specifically characterizes PAINS as nuisance compounds that interfere with biochemical or cell-based assays and generate misleading signals, and [0], which examines frequent hitters in high-throughput screening. Thus, the evidence directly supports the claim.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8204 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work