Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30011273›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2018

The next generation of natural history collections.

David E Schindel, Joseph A Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The relational modeling of hierarchical data in biodiversity databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024
    Article
  9. Pathogen prospecting of museums: Reconstructing malaria epidemiology.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Frontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

2 authors.

David E SchindelSmithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C., United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4364-6958
Joseph A CookMuseum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The last 50 years have witnessed rapid changes in the ways that natural history specimens are collected, preserved, analyzed, and documented. Those changes have produced unprecedented access to specimens, images, and data as well as impressive research results in organismal biology. The stage is now set for a new generation of collecting, preserving, analyzing, and integrating biological samples-a generation devoted to interdisciplinary research into complex biological interactions and processes. Next-generation collections may be essential for breakthrough research on the spread of infectious diseases, feeding Earth's growing population, adapting to climate change, and other grand research challenges. A decade-long investment in research collection infrastructure will be needed.

Indexed as

Natural HistoryCommunicable DiseasesHumansPest Control

Identifiers

PMID30011273
PMCPMC6062129

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.