ReviewOmics : a journal of integrative biology2010
Standardization and omics science: technical and social dimensions are inseparable and demand symmetrical study.
Review in Omics : a journal of integrative biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Narratives and tensions in the ethics of human proteomics literature: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Pooled it
- Dietary Omega-3 PUFAs in Metabolic Disease Research: A Decade of Omics-Enabled Insights (2014-2024).Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Eye-Tracking in Infants and Young Children at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Visual Stimuli in Experimental Paradigms.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Questions and Consequences of Omics in Genetically Engineered Crop Regulation.Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- NESTML: a generic modeling language and code generation tool for the simulation of spiking neural networks with advanced plasticity rules.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- State-of-the-art approaches in the investigation of human seminal bacteriome using metagenomic methods.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- Influence of plasma collection tubes on N-glycome in human blood samples.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring the role of underrepresented populations in polygenic risk scores for neurodegenerative disease risk prediction.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2020Article
- Microbial resolution of whole genome shotgun and 16S amplicon metagenomic sequencing using publicly available NEON data.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Bioinformatics Tools for Mass Spectroscopy-Based Metabolomic Data Processing and Analysis.Current bioinformatics · 2012Article
- Omics strategies for revealing Yersinia pestis virulence.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Standardization is critical to scientists and regulators to ensure the quality and interoperability of research processes, as well as the safety and efficacy of the attendant research products. This is perhaps most evident in the case of "omics science," which is enabled by a host of diverse high-throughput technologies such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. But standards are of interest to (and shaped by) others far beyond the immediate realm of individual scientists, laboratories, scientific consortia, or governments that develop, apply, and regulate them. Indeed, scientific standards have consequences for the social, ethical, and legal environment in which innovative technologies are regulated, and thereby command the attention of policy makers and citizens. This article argues that standardization of omics science is both technical and social. A critical synthesis of the social science literature indicates that: (1) standardization requires a degree of flexibility to be practical at the level of scientific practice in disparate sites; (2) the manner in which standards are created, and by whom, will impact their perceived legitimacy and therefore their potential to be used; and (3) the process of standardization itself is important to establishing the legitimacy of an area of scientific research.
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.