ArticleJournal of biomedical discovery and collaboration2011
A cognitive task analysis of a visual analytic workflow: Exploring molecular interaction networks in systems biology.
Article in Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of Population Health Analytics and Data Visualization for Decision Support in the Infectious Diseases Domain: A pilot study.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Article
- Research Infrastructure for Collaborative Team Science: Challenges in Technology-Supported Workflows in and Across Laboratories, Institutions, and Geographies.Seminars in nephrology · 2015Review
- Scientists' sense making when hypothesizing about disease mechanisms from expression data and their needs for visualization support.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- Perspectives on systems biology applications in diabetic kidney disease.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBioinformatics visualization tools are often not robust enough to support biomedical specialists’ complex exploratory analyses. Tools need to accommodate the workflows that scientists actually perform for specific translational research questions. To understand and model one of these workflows, we conducted a case-based, cognitive task analysis of a biomedical specialist’s exploratory workflow for the question: What functional interactions among gene products of high throughput expression data suggest previously unknown mechanisms of a disease?
resultsFrom our cognitive task analysis four complementary representations of the targeted workflow were developed. They include: usage scenarios, flow diagrams, a cognitive task taxonomy, and a mapping between cognitive tasks and user-centered visualization requirements. The representations capture the flows of cognitive tasks that led a biomedical specialist to inferences critical to hypothesizing. We created representations at levels of detail that could strategically guide visualization development, and we confirmed this by making a trial prototype based on user requirements for a small portion of the workflow.
conclusionsOur results imply that visualizations should make available to scientific users “bundles of features†consonant with the compositional cognitive tasks purposefully enacted at specific points in the workflow. We also highlight certain aspects of visualizations that: (a) need more built-in flexibility; (b) are critical for negotiating meaning; and (c) are necessary for essential metacognitive support.
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.