ArticlePloS one2012
Informatics technology mimics ecology: dense, mutualistic collaboration networks are associated with higher publication rates.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue Data Explorer: a website template for presenting tissue sample research findings.Journal of open source software · 2026Article
- Targeting ERBB receptors shifts their partners and triggers persistent ERK signaling through a novel ERBB/EFNB1 complex.Cancer research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Information technology (IT) adoption enables biomedical research. Publications are an accepted measure of research output, and network models can describe the collaborative nature of publication. In particular, ecological networks can serve as analogies for publication and technology adoption. We constructed network models of adoption of bioinformatics programming languages and health IT (HIT) from the literature.We selected seven programming languages and four types of HIT. We performed PubMed searches to identify publications since 2001. We calculated summary statistics and analyzed spatiotemporal relationships. Then, we assessed ecological models of specialization, cooperativity, competition, evolution, biodiversity, and stability associated with publications.Adoption of HIT has been variable, while scripting languages have experienced rapid adoption. Hospital systems had the largest HIT research corpus, while Perl had the largest language corpus. Scripting languages represented the largest connected network components. The relationship between edges and nodes was linear, though Bioconductor had more edges than expected and Perl had fewer. Spatiotemporal relationships were weak. Most languages shared a bioinformatics specialization and appeared mutualistic or competitive. HIT specializations varied. Specialization was highest for Bioconductor and radiology systems. Specialization and cooperativity were positively correlated among languages but negatively correlated among HIT. Rates of language evolution were similar. Biodiversity among languages grew in the first half of the decade and stabilized, while diversity among HIT was variable but flat. Compared with publications in 2001, correlation with publications one year later was positive while correlation after ten years was weak and negative.Adoption of new technologies can be unpredictable. Spatiotemporal relationships facilitate adoption but are not sufficient. As with ecosystems, dense, mutualistic, specialized co-habitation is associated with faster growth. There are rapidly changing trends in external technological and macroeconomic influences. We propose that a better understanding of how technologies are adopted can facilitate their development.
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.