ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2014
Extracting patterns of database and software usage from the bioinformatics literature.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2014. 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.
- The role of metadata in reproducible computational research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
- U-Index, a dataset and an impact metric for informatics tools and databases.Scientific data · 2018Article
- A Survey of Bioinformatics Database and Software Usage through Mining the Literature.PloS one · 2016Article
- Grand challenges in digital health.Frontiers in public health · 2015Article
- Ambiguity and variability of database and software names in bioinformatics.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2015Article
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
motivationAs a natural consequence of being a computer-based discipline, bioinformatics has a strong focus on database and software development, but the volume and variety of resources are growing at unprecedented rates. An audit of database and software usage patterns could help provide an overview of developments in bioinformatics and community common practice, and comparing the links between resources through time could demonstrate both the persistence of existing software and the emergence of new tools.
resultsWe study the connections between bioinformatics resources and construct networks of database and software usage patterns, based on resource co-occurrence, that correspond to snapshots of common practice in the bioinformatics community. We apply our approach to pairings of phylogenetics software reported in the literature and argue that these could provide a stepping stone into the identification of scientific best practice. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The extracted resource data, the scripts used for network generation and the resulting networks are available at http://bionerds.sourceforge.net/networks/.
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.