ArticleCurrent genomics2012
On the limitations of biological knowledge.
Article in Current genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eleven quick tips for data cleaning and feature engineering.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Review
- Cutaneous Papillomaviruses and Non-melanoma Skin Cancer: Causal Agents or Innocent Bystanders?Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Review
- Gene network biological validity based on gene-gene interaction relevance.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Article
- Optimal Objective-Based Experimental Design for Uncertain Dynamical Gene Networks with Experimental Error.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific knowledge is grounded in a particular epistemology and, owing to the requirements of that epistemology, possesses limitations. Some limitations are intrinsic, in the sense that they depend inherently on the nature of scientific knowledge; others are contingent, depending on the present state of knowledge, including technology. Understanding limitations facilitates scientific research because one can then recognize when one is confronted by a limitation, as opposed to simply being unable to solve a problem within the existing bounds of possibility. In the hope that the role of limiting factors can be brought more clearly into focus and discussed, we consider several sources of limitation as they apply to biological knowledge: mathematical complexity, experimental constraints, validation, knowledge discovery, and human intellectual capacity.
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.