ReviewLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2015
The need for novel informatics tools for integrating and planning research in molecular and cellular cognition.
Review in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiment Selection in Meta-Analytic Piecemeal Causal Discovery.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2021Article
- FindSim: A Framework for Integrating Neuronal Data and Signaling Models.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2018Article
- ResearchMaps.org for integrating and planning research.PloS one · 2018Article
- Computer-Aided Experiment Planning toward Causal Discovery in Neuroscience.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The sheer volume and complexity of publications in the biological sciences are straining traditional approaches to research planning. Nowhere is this problem more serious than in molecular and cellular cognition, since in this neuroscience field, researchers routinely use approaches and information from a variety of areas in neuroscience and other biology fields. Additionally, the multilevel integration process characteristic of this field involves the establishment of experimental connections between molecular, electrophysiological, behavioral, and even cognitive data. This multidisciplinary integration process requires strategies and approaches that originate in several different fields, which greatly increases the complexity and demands of this process. Although causal assertions, where phenomenon A is thought to contribute or relate to B, are at the center of this integration process and key to research in biology, there are currently no tools to help scientists keep track of the increasingly more complex network of causal connections they use when making research decisions. Here, we propose the development of semiautomated graphical and interactive tools to help neuroscientists and other biologists, including those working in molecular and cellular cognition, to track, map, and weight causal evidence in research papers. There is a great need for a concerted effort by biologists, computer scientists, and funding institutions to develop maps of causal information that would aid in integration of research findings and in experiment planning.
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.