Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26055099›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2015

A general concept for consistent documentation of computational analyses.

Peter Ebert, Fabian Müller, Karl Nordström, Thomas Lengauer, Marcel H Schulz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Peter EbertComputational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Computational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany mschulz@mmci.uni-saarland.de.
Fabian MüllerComputational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Computational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Karl NordströmComputational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Thomas LengauerComputational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Marcel H SchulzComputational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Computational Biology and Applied Algorithmics, Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany Graduate School of Computer Science, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany Department of Genetics, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany and Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany mschulz@mmci.uni-saarland.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ever-growing amount of data in the field of life sciences demands standardized ways of high-throughput computational analysis. This standardization requires a thorough documentation of each step in the computational analysis to enable researchers to understand and reproduce the results. However, due to the heterogeneity in software setups and the high rate of change during tool development, reproducibility is hard to achieve. One reason is that there is no common agreement in the research community on how to document computational studies. In many cases, simple flat files or other unstructured text documents are provided by researchers as documentation, which are often missing software dependencies, versions and sufficient documentation to understand the workflow and parameter settings. As a solution we suggest a simple and modest approach for documenting and verifying computational analysis pipelines. We propose a two-part scheme that defines a computational analysis using a Process and an Analysis metadata document, which jointly describe all necessary details to reproduce the results. In this design we separate the metadata specifying the process from the metadata describing an actual analysis run, thereby reducing the effort of manual documentation to an absolute minimum. Our approach is independent of a specific software environment, results in human readable XML documents that can easily be shared with other researchers and allows an automated validation to ensure consistency of the metadata. Because our approach has been designed with little to no assumptions concerning the workflow of an analysis, we expect it to be applicable in a wide range of computational research fields.

Indexed as

Data CurationElectronic Data ProcessingHumansWord Processing

Identifiers

PMID26055099
PMCPMC4460408

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.