ArticleGates open research2018
DataPackageR: Reproducible data preprocessing, standardization and sharing using R/Bioconductor for collaborative data analysis.
Article in Gates open research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revolutionizing adjuvant development: harnessing AI for next-generation cancer vaccines.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Orchestrating and sharing large multimodal data for transparent and reproducible research.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Big data-based identification of methylated genes associated with drug resistance and prognosis in ovarian cancer.Medicine · 2020Article
- Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking.Genome biology · 2019Review
- Datastorr: a workflow and package for delivering successive versions of 'evolving data' directly into R.GigaScience · 2019Article
- The Computational article format: Software as a research output.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A central tenet of reproducible research is that scientific results are published along with the underlying data and software code necessary to reproduce and verify the findings. A host of tools and software have been released that facilitate such work-flows and scientific journals have increasingly demanded that code and primary data be made available with publications. There has been little practical advice on implementing reproducible research work-flows for large 'omics' or systems biology data sets used by teams of analysts working in collaboration. In such instances it is important to ensure all analysts use the same version of a data set for their analyses. Yet, instantiating relational databases and standard operating procedures can be unwieldy, with high "startup" costs and poor adherence to procedures when they deviate substantially from an analyst's usual work-flow. Ideally a reproducible research work-flow should fit naturally into an individual's existing work-flow, with minimal disruption. Here, we provide an overview of how we have leveraged popular open source tools, including Bioconductor, Rmarkdown, git version control, R, and specifically R's package system combined with a new tool
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.