ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2013
Assessing the validity and reproducibility of genome-scale predictions.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2013. 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.
- Integrative evolutionary and structural modeling of leaf rust resistance genes in wheat (Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Understanding experiments and research practices for reproducibility: an exploratory study.PeerJ · 2021Article
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
motivationValidation and reproducibility of results is a central and pressing issue in genomics. Several recent embarrassing incidents involving the irreproducibility of high-profile studies have illustrated the importance of this issue and the need for rigorous methods for the assessment of reproducibility.
resultsHere, we describe an existing statistical model that is very well suited to this problem. We explain its utility for assessing the reproducibility of validation experiments, and apply it to a genome-scale study of adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR)-mediated RNA editing in Drosophila. We also introduce a statistical method for planning validation experiments that will obtain the tightest reproducibility confidence limits, which, for a fixed total number of experiments, returns the optimal number of replicates for the study. AVAILABILITY: Downloadable software and a web service for both the analysis of data from a reproducibility study and for the optimal design of these studies is provided at http://ccmbweb.ccv.brown.edu/reproducibility.html .
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.