ArticlePLoS biology2017
Let's rise up to unite taxonomy and technology.
Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using reflectance spectra and Pl@ntNet to identify herbarium specimens: a case study with Lithocarpus.The New phytologist · 2026Article
- A Computer Vision Method for Finding Mislabelled Specimens Within Natural History Collections.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- PROTAX-GPU: a scalable probabilistic taxonomic classification system for DNA barcodes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- The whack-a-mole governance challenge for AI-enabled synthetic biology: literature review and emerging frameworks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- How Phylogenetics Can Elucidate the Chemical Ecology of Poison Frogs and Their Arthropod Prey.Journal of chemical ecology · 2022Article
- Collections Education: The Extended Specimen and Data Acumen.Bioscience · 2022Article
- Trends in the detection of aquatic non-indigenous species across global marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems: A 50-year perspective.Diversity & distributions · 2020Article
- Repositories for Taxonomic Data: Where We Are and What is Missing.Systematic biology · 2020Review
- Review
- A comparative analysis of metabarcoding and morphology-based identification of benthic communities across different regional seas.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Real-time DNA barcoding in a rainforest using nanopore sequencing: opportunities for rapid biodiversity assessments and local capacity building.GigaScience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
What do you think of when you think of taxonomy? An 18th century gentlemen in breeches? Or perhaps botany drawings hung on the walls of a boutique hotel? Such old-fashioned conceptions to the contrary, taxonomy is alive today although constantly struggling for survival and recognition. The scientific community is losing valuable resources as taxonomy experts age and retire, and funding for morphological studies and species descriptions remains stagnant. At the same time, organismal knowledge (morphology, ecology, physiology) has never been more important: genomic studies are becoming more taxon focused, the scientific community is recognizing the limitations of traditional "model" organisms, and taxonomic expertise is desperately needed to fight against global biodiversity declines resulting from human impacts. There has never been a better time for a taxonomic renaissance.
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.