Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26425437›Full record

ArticleBeilstein journal of nanotechnology2015

Nanocuration workflows: Establishing best practices for identifying, inputting, and sharing data to inform decisions on nanomaterials.

Christina M Powers, Karmann A Mills, Stephanie A Morris, Fred Klaessig, Sharon Gaheen, Nastassja Lewinski, Christine Ogilvie Hendren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Beilstein journal of nanotechnology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Data Shepherding in Nanotechnology. The Initiation.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  7. Towards FAIR nanosafety data.Nature nanotechnology · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Nanoinformatics for environmental health and biomedicine.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2015
    Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Christina M PowersNational Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA ; Currently: Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.
Karmann A MillsRTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Stephanie A MorrisOffice of Cancer Nanotechnology Research, National Cancer Institute/NIH, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Fred KlaessigPennsylvania Bio Nano Systems, LLC, 69 Homestead Drive, Doylestown, PA 18901, USA.
Sharon GaheenLeidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, 8560 Progress Drive, Frederick, MD 21702, USA.
Nastassja LewinskiDepartment of Chemical and Life Science Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, 601 W. Main St., P.O. Box 843028, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.
Christine Ogilvie HendrenCenter for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT), Duke University, P.O. Box 90287, 121 Hudson Hall, Durham, NC 27708, USA.

Funding

NIBIB NIH HHS HHSN268201000022C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a critical opportunity in the field of nanoscience to compare and integrate information across diverse fields of study through informatics (i.e., nanoinformatics). This paper is one in a series of articles on the data curation process in nanoinformatics (nanocuration). Other articles in this series discuss key aspects of nanocuration (temporal metadata, data completeness, database integration), while the focus of this article is on the nanocuration workflow, or the process of identifying, inputting, and reviewing nanomaterial data in a data repository. In particular, the article discusses: 1) the rationale and importance of a defined workflow in nanocuration, 2) the influence of organizational goals or purpose on the workflow, 3) established workflow practices in other fields, 4) current workflow practices in nanocuration, 5) key challenges for workflows in emerging fields like nanomaterials, 6) examples to make these challenges more tangible, and 7) recommendations to address the identified challenges. Throughout the article, there is an emphasis on illustrating key concepts and current practices in the field. Data on current practices in the field are from a group of stakeholders active in nanocuration. In general, the development of workflows for nanocuration is nascent, with few individuals formally trained in data curation or utilizing available nanocuration resources (e.g., ISA-TAB-Nano). Additional emphasis on the potential benefits of cultivating nanomaterial data via nanocuration processes (e.g., capability to analyze data from across research groups) and providing nanocuration resources (e.g., training) will likely prove crucial for the wider application of nanocuration workflows in the scientific community.

Indexed as

curationinformaticsnanoinformaticsnanomaterialsworkflows

Identifiers

PMID26425437
PMCPMC4578434

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.