Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24766796›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014

Scientists' sense making when hypothesizing about disease mechanisms from expression data and their needs for visualization support.

Barbara Mirel, Carsten Görg

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Barbara MirelSchool of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. bmirel@umich.edu.
Carsten Görg

Funding

Bio Text NLPR01LM009254 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI HUNTER, LAWRENCE E · 2006 to 2018
$5.9M
Interactive Medline Search Engine Integrating External InformationR01LM009812 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MENG, FAN · 2010 to 2013
$1.5M
NIDA NIH HHS U54-DA-021510NLM NIH HHS R01LM009254NLM NIH HHS R01LM009812-01A2PHS HHS HHSN276201000033CPHS HHS P30DKO81943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A common class of biomedical analysis is to explore expression data from high throughput experiments for the purpose of uncovering functional relationships that can lead to a hypothesis about mechanisms of a disease. We call this analysis expression driven, -omics hypothesizing. In it, scientists use interactive data visualizations and read deeply in the research literature. Little is known, however, about the actual flow of reasoning and behaviors (sense making) that scientists enact in this analysis, end-to-end. Understanding this flow is important because if bioinformatics tools are to be truly useful they must support it. Sense making models of visual analytics in other domains have been developed and used to inform the design of useful and usable tools. We believe they would be helpful in bioinformatics. To characterize the sense making involved in expression-driven, -omics hypothesizing, we conducted an in-depth observational study of one scientist as she engaged in this analysis over six months. From findings, we abstracted a preliminary sense making model. Here we describe its stages and suggest guidelines for developing visualization tools that we derived from this case. A single case cannot be generalized. But we offer our findings, sense making model and case-based tool guidelines as a first step toward increasing interest and further research in the bioinformatics field on scientists' analytical workflows and their implications for tool design.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingResearch DesignDiseaseHumans

Identifiers

PMID24766796
PMCPMC4021544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.