Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27296526›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2016

Keemei: cloud-based validation of tabular bioinformatics file formats in Google Sheets.

Jai Ram Rideout, John H Chase, Evan Bolyen, Gail Ackermann, Antonio González, Rob Knight, J Gregory Caporaso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Milk andAmerican journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Analysis of the Nasal Microbiota in Healthy and Diseased Pigs.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Screening Salamanders for Symbionts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Recently EvolvedFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Jai Ram RideoutCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
John H ChaseCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Evan BolyenCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Gail AckermannDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
Antonio GonzálezDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
Rob KnightDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
J Gregory CaporasoCenter for Microbial Genetics and Genomics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA. gregcaporaso@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBioinformatics software often requires human-generated tabular text files as input and has specific requirements for how those data are formatted. Users frequently manage these data in spreadsheet programs, which is convenient for researchers who are compiling the requisite information because the spreadsheet programs can easily be used on different platforms including laptops and tablets, and because they provide a familiar interface. It is increasingly common for many different researchers to be involved in compiling these data, including study coordinators, clinicians, lab technicians and bioinformaticians. As a result, many research groups are shifting toward using cloud-based spreadsheet programs, such as Google Sheets, which support the concurrent editing of a single spreadsheet by different users working on different platforms. Most of the researchers who enter data are not familiar with the formatting requirements of the bioinformatics programs that will be used, so validating and correcting file formats is often a bottleneck prior to beginning bioinformatics analysis. MAIN TEXT: We present Keemei, a Google Sheets Add-on, for validating tabular files used in bioinformatics analyses. Keemei is available free of charge from Google's Chrome Web Store. Keemei can be installed and run on any web browser supported by Google Sheets. Keemei currently supports the validation of two widely used tabular bioinformatics formats, the Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) sample metadata mapping file format and the Spatially Referenced Genetic Data (SRGD) format, but is designed to easily support the addition of others.

conclusionsKeemei will save researchers time and frustration by providing a convenient interface for tabular bioinformatics file format validation. By allowing everyone involved with data entry for a project to easily validate their data, it will reduce the validation and formatting bottlenecks that are commonly encountered when human-generated data files are first used with a bioinformatics system. Simplifying the validation of essential tabular data files, such as sample metadata, will reduce common errors and thereby improve the quality and reliability of research outcomes.

Indexed as

Cloud ComputingComputational BiologyHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalSoftwareUser-Computer InterfaceCloudData validationMetadataPluginQIIMESpreadsheetTabular file format

Identifiers

PMID27296526
PMCPMC4906574

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.