ArticlePloS one2016
Resource Disambiguator for the Web: Extracting Biomedical Resources and Their Citations from the Scientific Literature.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ENIGMA + COINSTAC: Improving Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Re-usability.Neuroinformatics · 2022Pooled it
- Establishing an early indicator for data sharing and reuse.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2024Article
- The past, present and future of neuroscience data sharing: a perspective on the state of practices and infrastructure for FAIR.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2023Review
- Establishing Institutional Scores With the Rigor and Transparency Index: Large-scale Analysis of Scientific Reporting Quality.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- The Rigor and Transparency Index Quality Metric for Assessing Biological and Medical Science Methods.iScience · 2020Article
- Recognizing software names in biomedical literature using machine learning.Health informatics journal · 2020Article
- Incidences of problematic cell lines are lower in papers that use RRIDs to identify cell lines.eLife · 2019Article
- PyMICE: APython library for analysis of IntelliCage data.Behavior research methods · 2018Article
- U-Index, a dataset and an impact metric for informatics tools and databases.Scientific data · 2018Article
- Article
- A Framework for Collaborative Curation of Neuroscientific Literature.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2017Article
- RRIDs: A Simple Step toward Improving Reproducibility through Rigor and Transparency of Experimental Methods.Neuron · 2016Review
- A Survey of Bioinformatics Database and Software Usage through Mining the Literature.PloS one · 2016Article
- The Resource Identification Initiative: A Cultural Shift in Publishing.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2016Article
- Comparing the Use of Research Resource Identifiers and Natural Language Processing for Citation of Databases, Software, and Other Digital Artifacts.Computing in science & engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The NIF Registry developed and maintained by the Neuroscience Information Framework is a cooperative project aimed at cataloging research resources, e.g., software tools, databases and tissue banks, funded largely by governments and available as tools to research scientists. Although originally conceived for neuroscience, the NIF Registry has over the years broadened in the scope to include research resources of general relevance to biomedical research. The current number of research resources listed by the Registry numbers over 13K. The broadening in scope to biomedical science led us to re-christen the NIF Registry platform as SciCrunch. The NIF/SciCrunch Registry has been cataloging the resource landscape since 2006; as such, it serves as a valuable dataset for tracking the breadth, fate and utilization of these resources. Our experience shows research resources like databases are dynamic objects, that can change location and scope over time. Although each record is entered manually and human-curated, the current size of the registry requires tools that can aid in curation efforts to keep content up to date, including when and where such resources are used. To address this challenge, we have developed an open source tool suite, collectively termed RDW: Resource Disambiguator for the (Web). RDW is designed to help in the upkeep and curation of the registry as well as in enhancing the content of the registry by automated extraction of resource candidates from the literature. The RDW toolkit includes a URL extractor from papers, resource candidate screen, resource URL change tracker, resource content change tracker. Curators access these tools via a web based user interface. Several strategies are used to optimize these tools, including supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms as well as statistical text analysis. The complete tool suite is used to enhance and maintain the resource registry as well as track the usage of individual resources through an innovative literature citation index honed for research resources. Here we present an overview of the Registry and show how the RDW tools are used in curation and usage tracking.
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.