Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18449388›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2007

Making a new technology work: the standardization and regulation of microarrays.

Susan Rogers, Alberto Cambrosio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Data Interpretation in the Digital Age.Perspectives on science : historical, philosophical, social · 2014
    Article
  4. Making open data work for plant scientists.Journal of experimental botany · 2013
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Data standards for Omics data: the basis of data sharing and reuse.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2011
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Susan RogersDepartment of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. susan.rogers2@mcgill.ca .
Alberto Cambrosio

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The translation of laboratory innovations into clinical tools is dependent upon the development of regulatory arrangements designed to ensure that the new technology will be used reliably and consistently. A case study of a key post-genomic technology, gene chips or microarrays, exemplifies this claim. The number of microarray publications and patents has increased exponentially during the last decade and diagnostic microarray tests already are making their way into the clinic. Yet starting in the mid-1990s, scientific journals were overrun with criticism concerning the ambiguities involved in interpreting most of the assumptions of a microarray experiment. Questions concerning platform comparability and statistical calculations were and continue to be raised, in spite of the emergence by 2001 of an initial set of standards concerning several components of a microarray experiment. This article probes the history and ongoing efforts aimed at turning microarray experimentation into a viable, meaningful, and consensual technology by focusing on two related elements:1) The history of the development of the Microarray Gene Expression Data Society (MGED), a remarkable bottom-up initiative that brings together different kinds of specialists from academic, commercial, and hybrid settings to produce, maintain, and update microarray standards; and 2) The unusual mix of skills and expertise involved in the development and use of microarrays. The production, accumulation, storage, and mining of microarray data remain multi-skilled endeavors bridging together different types of scientists who embody a diversity of scientific traditions. Beyond standardization, the interfacing of these different skills has become a key issue for further development of the field.

Indexed as

Government RegulationBiotechnologyGene Expression ProfilingInternationalityOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisQuality Assurance, Health CareReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID18449388
PMCPMC2347363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.