ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2008
Towards the use of argumentation in bioinformatics: a gene expression case study.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using image mapping towards biomedical and biological data sharing.GigaScience · 2013Article
- Argudas: lessons for argumentation in biology based on a gene expression use case.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
- Knowledge-driven enhancements for task composition in bioinformatics.BMC bioinformatics · 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
motivationDue to different experimental setups and various interpretations of results, the data contained in online bioinformatics resources can be inconsistent, therefore, making it more difficult for users of these resources to assess the suitability and correctness of the answers to their queries. This work investigates the role of argumentation systems to help users evaluate such answers. More specifically, it looks closely at a gene expression case study, creating an appropriate representation of the underlying data and series of rules that are used by a third-party argumentation engine to reason over the query results provided by the mouse gene expression database EMAGE.
resultsA prototype using the ASPIC argumentation engine has been implemented and a preliminary evaluation carried out. This evaluation suggested that argumentation can be used to deal with inconsistent data in biological resources. AVAILABILITY: The ASPIC argumentation engine is available from http://www.argumentation.org. EMAGE gene expression data can be obtained from http://genex.hgu.mrc.ac.uk. The argumentation rules for the gene expression example are available from the lead author upon request.
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.