ArticlePeerJ2015
Language workbench user interfaces for data analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological data analysis is frequently performed with command line software. While this practice provides considerable flexibility for computationally savy individuals, such as investigators trained in bioinformatics, this also creates a barrier to the widespread use of data analysis software by investigators trained as biologists and/or clinicians. Workflow systems such as Galaxy and Taverna have been developed to try and provide generic user interfaces that can wrap command line analysis software. These solutions are useful for problems that can be solved with workflows, and that do not require specialized user interfaces. However, some types of analyses can benefit from custom user interfaces. For instance, developing biomarker models from high-throughput data is a type of analysis that can be expressed more succinctly with specialized user interfaces. Here, we show how Language Workbench (LW) technology can be used to model the biomarker development and validation process. We developed a language that models the concepts of Dataset, Endpoint, Feature Selection Method and Classifier. These high-level language concepts map directly to abstractions that analysts who develop biomarker models are familiar with. We found that user interfaces developed in the Meta-Programming System (MPS) LW provide convenient means to configure a biomarker development project, to train models and view the validation statistics. We discuss several advantages of developing user interfaces for data analysis with a LW, including increased interface consistency, portability and extension by language composition. The language developed during this experiment is distributed as an MPS plugin (available at http://campagnelab.org/software/bdval-for-mps/).
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.