ArticleGene2016
Gene Wiki Reviews-Raising the quality and accessibility of information about the human genome.
Article in Gene, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Article
- Biomedical Informatics on the Cloud: A Treasure Hunt for Advancing Cardiovascular Medicine.Circulation research · 2018Review
- Biocuration: Distilling data into knowledge.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wikipedia and other openly available resources are increasingly becoming commonly used sources of information not just among the lay public but even in academic circles including undergraduate students and postgraduate trainees. To enhance the quality of the Wikipedia articles, in 2013, we initiated the Gene Wiki Reviews on genes and proteins as a series of invited reviews that stipulated editing the corresponding Wikipedia article(s) that would be also subject to peer-review. Thus, while the review article serves as an authoritative snapshot of the field, the "living article" can continue to evolve with the crowdsourcing model of Wikipedia. After publication of over 50 articles, we surveyed the authors to assess the impact of the project. The author survey results revealed that the Gene Wiki project is achieving its major objectives to increase the involvement of scientists in authoring Wikipedia articles and to enhance the quantity and quality of the information about genes and their protein products. Thus, the dual publication model introduced in the Gene Wiki Reviews series represents a valuable innovation in scientific publishing and biomedical knowledge management. We invite experts on specific genes to contact the editors to take part in this project to enhance the quality and accessibility of information about the human genome.
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.