ReviewNeuroinformatics2008
Domain-specific data sharing in neuroscience: what do we have to learn from each other?
Review in Neuroinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- Processing and Analysis of Multichannel Extracellular Neuronal Signals: State-of-the-Art and Challenges.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2016Review
- Sharing Neuron Data: Carrots, Sticks, and Digital Records.PLoS biology · 2015Article
- Interacting with the National Database for Autism Research (NDAR) via the LONI Pipeline workflow environment.Brain imaging and behavior · 2015Article
- Genetic data sharing and privacy.Neuroinformatics · 2015Article
- Human neuroimaging as a "Big Data" science.Brain imaging and behavior · 2014Article
- Why share data? Lessons learned from the fMRIDC.NeuroImage · 2013Article
- Sharing heterogeneous data: the national database for autism research.Neuroinformatics · 2012Review
- Electronic data capture, representation, and applications for neuroimaging.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2012Article
- Understanding complexity in the human brain.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2011Article
- Data publishing and scientific journals: the future of the scientific paper in a world of shared data.Neuroinformatics · 2010Review
- PhysiomeSpace: digital library service for biomedical data.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2010Article
- Article
- Towards reproducible descriptions of neuronal network models.PLoS computational biology · 2009Article
- Musings of a post-stimulus mind...Neuroinformatics · 2009Article
- The central role of neuroinformatics in the National Academy of Engineering's grandest challenge: reverse engineer the brain.Neuroinformatics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular biology and genomics have made notable strides in the sharing of primary data and resources. In other domains of neuroscience research, however, there has been resistance to adopting formalized strategies for data exchange, archiving, and availability. In this article, we discuss how neuroscience domains might follow the lead of molecular biology on what has been successful and what has failed in active data sharing. This considers not only the technical challenges but also the sociological concerns in making it possible. Though, not a pain-free process, with increased data availability, scientists from multiple fields can enjoy greater opportunity for novel discoveries about the brain in health and disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.