ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2015
A general concept for consistent documentation of computational analyses.
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.
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.
- Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference.Biology · 2026Review
- Guidelines for systematic reporting of sequence alignments.Biology methods & protocols · 2020Article
- A comprehensive analysis of 195 DNA methylomes reveals shared and cell-specific features of partially methylated domains.Genome biology · 2018Article
- Combining transcription factor binding affinities with open-chromatin data for accurate gene expression prediction.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- Where next for the reproducibility agenda in computational biology?BMC systems biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.