ArticlePeerJ2017
Indicators for the use of robotic labs in basic biomedical research: a literature analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of the PRNT: Merging tradition and innovation to set the gold standard in the era of automation.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Automated high throughput IgG N-glycosylation sample preparation method development on the Tecan Freedom EVO platform.Biochemia medica · 2024Article
- Article
- Nobel Turing Challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2021Review
- Setting Up an Automated Biomanufacturing Laboratory.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Automation in the Life Science Research Laboratory.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Improving Reproducibility in Synthetic Biology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- An Analysis of Monitoring Solutions for CAR T Cell Production.Healthcare technology lettersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic labs, in which experiments are carried out entirely by robots, have the potential to provide a reproducible and transparent foundation for performing basic biomedical laboratory experiments. In this article, we investigate whether these labs could be applicable in current experimental practice. We do this by text mining 1,628 papers for occurrences of methods that are supported by commercial robotic labs. Using two different concept recognition tools, we find that 86%-89% of the papers have at least one of these methods. This and our other results provide indications that robotic labs can serve as the foundation for performing many lab-based experiments.
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.