ArticlePloS one2014
Collaborative mining and interpretation of large-scale data for biomedical research insights.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Integrating Next-Generation Sequencing in the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Workflow.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- The New Age of -omics in Urothelial Cancer - Re-wording Its Diagnosis and Treatment.EBioMedicine · 2018Review
- Pharmacometabolomics-aided Pharmacogenomics in Autoimmune Disease.EBioMedicine · 2016Review
- Computational approaches in target identification and drug discovery.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2016Review
- Pharmacometabolomics Informs Viromics toward Precision Medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical research becomes increasingly interdisciplinary and collaborative in nature. Researchers need to efficiently and effectively collaborate and make decisions by meaningfully assembling, mining and analyzing available large-scale volumes of complex multi-faceted data residing in different sources. In line with related research directives revealing that, in spite of the recent advances in data mining and computational analysis, humans can easily detect patterns which computer algorithms may have difficulty in finding, this paper reports on the practical use of an innovative web-based collaboration support platform in a biomedical research context. Arguing that dealing with data-intensive and cognitively complex settings is not a technical problem alone, the proposed platform adopts a hybrid approach that builds on the synergy between machine and human intelligence to facilitate the underlying sense-making and decision making processes. User experience shows that the platform enables more informed and quicker decisions, by displaying the aggregated information according to their needs, while also exploiting the associated human intelligence.
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.