ArticleStandards in genomic sciences2010
Meeting Report from the Second "Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations" (MIBBI) workshop.
Article in Standards in genomic sciences, 2010. 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.
- A Case for Accelerating Standards to Achieve the FAIR Principles of Environmental Health Research Experimental Data.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- CEDAR OnDemand: a browser extension to generate ontology-based scientific metadata.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Article
- Highlights of the Biology and Disease-driven Human Proteome Project, 2015-2016.Journal of proteome research · 2016Article
- Minimum information required for a DMET experiment reporting.Pharmacogenomics · 2016Article
- Article
- Minimum information for reporting next generation sequence genotyping (MIRING): Guidelines for reporting HLA and KIR genotyping via next generation sequencing.Human immunology · 2015Article
- From Peer-Reviewed to Peer-Reproduced in Scholarly Publishing: The Complementary Roles of Data Models and Workflows in Bioinformatics.PloS one · 2015Article
- The Trip Adviser guide to the protein science world: a proposal to improve the awareness concerning the quality of recombinant proteins.BMC research notes · 2014Article
- Toward more transparent and reproducible omics studies through a common metadata checklist and data publications.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2014Article
- linkedISA: semantic representation of ISA-Tab experimental metadata.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Guidelines for information about therapy experiments: a proposal on best practice for recording experimental data on cancer therapy.BMC research notes · 2012Article
- Recombinant protein quality evaluation: proposal for a minimal information standard.Standards in genomic sciences · 2011Article
- Minimum Information about a Cardiac Electrophysiology Experiment (MICEE): standardised reporting for model reproducibility, interoperability, and data sharing.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2011Article
- The first special issue of Standards in Genomic Sciences from the Genomic Standards Consortium.Standards in genomic sciences · 2010Article
- Web-enabled and improved software tools and data are needed to measure nutrient intakes and physical activity for personalized health research.The Journal of nutrition · 2010Article
- Genotype-phenotype databases: challenges and solutions for the post-genomic era.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This report summarizes the proceedings of the second workshop of the 'Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations' (MIBBI) consortium held on Dec 1-2, 2010 in Rüdesheim, Germany through the sponsorship of the Beilstein-Institute. MIBBI is an umbrella organization uniting communities developing Minimum Information (MI) checklists to standardize the description of data sets, the workflows by which they were generated and the scientific context for the work. This workshop brought together representatives of more than twenty communities to present the status of their MI checklists and plans for future development. Shared challenges and solutions were identified and the role of MIBBI in MI checklist development was discussed. The meeting featured some thirty presentations, wide-ranging discussions and breakout groups. The top outcomes of the two-day workshop as defined by the participants were: 1) the chance to share best practices and to identify areas of synergy; 2) defining a series of tasks for updating the MIBBI Portal; 3) reemphasizing the need to maintain independent MI checklists for various communities while leveraging common terms and workflow elements contained in multiple checklists; and 4) revision of the concept of the MIBBI Foundry to focus on the creation of a core set of MIBBI modules intended for reuse by individual MI checklist projects while maintaining the integrity of each MI project. Further information about MIBBI and its range of activities can be found at http://mibbi.org/.
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.