Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27422148›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2016

Where next for the reproducibility agenda in computational biology?

Joanna Lewis, Charles E Breeze, Jane Charlesworth, Oliver J Maclaren, Jonathan Cooper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2016. 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Omics Analyses: How to Navigate Through a Constant Data Deluge.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Joanna LewisCentre for Maths and Physics in the Life Sciences and Experimental Biology, University College London, Physics Building, Gower Place, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. joanna.lewis@imperial.ac.uk.
Charles E BreezeUCL Cancer Institute, University College London, 72 Huntley St, London, WC1E 6DD, UK.
Jane CharlesworthDepartment of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EH, UK.
Oliver J MaclarenDepartment of Mathematics, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Jonathan CooperDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K017578/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of reproducibility is a foundation of the scientific method. With the arrival of fast and powerful computers over the last few decades, there has been an explosion of results based on complex computational analyses and simulations. The reproducibility of these results has been addressed mainly in terms of exact replicability or numerical equivalence, ignoring the wider issue of the reproducibility of conclusions through equivalent, extended or alternative methods.

resultsWe use case studies from our own research experience to illustrate how concepts of reproducibility might be applied in computational biology. Several fields have developed 'minimum information' checklists to support the full reporting of computational simulations, analyses and results, and standardised data formats and model description languages can facilitate the use of multiple systems to address the same research question. We note the importance of defining the key features of a result to be reproduced, and the expected agreement between original and subsequent results. Dynamic, updatable tools for publishing methods and results are becoming increasingly common, but sometimes come at the cost of clear communication. In general, the reproducibility of computational research is improving but would benefit from additional resources and incentives.

conclusionsWe conclude with a series of linked recommendations for improving reproducibility in computational biology through communication, policy, education and research practice. More reproducible research will lead to higher quality conclusions, deeper understanding and more valuable knowledge.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareCommunicationEducationExtensibilityPolicyReplicabilityReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID27422148
PMCPMC4946111

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.