ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014
Community-driven development for computational biology at Sprints, Hackathons and Codefests.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging resistome diversity in clinical Vibrio cholerae strains revealing their role as potential reservoirs of antimicrobial resistance.Molecular biology reports · 2024Article
- Hack your organizational innovation: literature review and integrative model for running hackathons.Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship · 2023Review
- Metabacillus rhizolycopersici sp. nov., Isolated from the Rhizosphere Soil of Tomato Plants.Current microbiology · 2022Article
- One-off events? An empirical study of hackathon code creation and reuse.Empirical software engineering · 2022Article
- Ten simple rules to run a successful BioHackathon.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Scalable Workflows and Reproducible Data Analysis for Genomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2019Article
- Organizing and running bioinformatics hackathons within Africa: The H3ABioNet cloud computing experience.AAS open research · 2018Article
- Crowdsourcing biomedical research: leveraging communities as innovation engines.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2016Review
- The 2015 Bioinformatics Open Source Conference (BOSC 2015).PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- Tools and data services registry: a community effort to document bioinformatics resources.Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
- Toward effective software solutions for big biology.Nature biotechnology · 2015Article
- Computing Workflows for Biologists: A Roadmap.PLoS biology · 2015Article
- NETTAB 2013: Semantic, social, and mobile applications for bioinformatics and biomedical laboratories.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputational biology comprises a wide range of technologies and approaches. Multiple technologies can be combined to create more powerful workflows if the individuals contributing the data or providing tools for its interpretation can find mutual understanding and consensus. Much conversation and joint investigation are required in order to identify and implement the best approaches. Traditionally, scientific conferences feature talks presenting novel technologies or insights, followed up by informal discussions during coffee breaks. In multi-institution collaborations, in order to reach agreement on implementation details or to transfer deeper insights in a technology and practical skills, a representative of one group typically visits the other. However, this does not scale well when the number of technologies or research groups is large. Conferences have responded to this issue by introducing Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) sessions, which offer an opportunity for individuals with common interests to intensify their interaction. However, parallel BoF sessions often make it hard for participants to join multiple BoFs and find common ground between the different technologies, and BoFs are generally too short to allow time for participants to program together.
resultsThis report summarises our experience with computational biology Codefests, Hackathons and Sprints, which are interactive developer meetings. They are structured to reduce the limitations of traditional scientific meetings described above by strengthening the interaction among peers and letting the participants determine the schedule and topics. These meetings are commonly run as loosely scheduled "unconferences" (self-organized identification of participants and topics for meetings) over at least two days, with early introductory talks to welcome and organize contributors, followed by intensive collaborative coding sessions. We summarise some prominent achievements of those meetings and describe differences in how these are organised, how their audience is addressed, and their outreach to their respective communities.
conclusionsHackathons, Codefests and Sprints share a stimulating atmosphere that encourages participants to jointly brainstorm and tackle problems of shared interest in a self-driven proactive environment, as well as providing an opportunity for new participants to get involved in collaborative projects.
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.