Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30367595›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Reproducible bioinformatics project: a community for reproducible bioinformatics analysis pipelines.

Neha Kulkarni, Luca Alessandrì, Riccardo Panero, Maddalena Arigoni, Martina Olivero, Giulio Ferrero, Francesca Cordero, Marco Beccuti, Raffaele A Calogero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. EAVLD 2024 - 7Italian journal of food safety · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Circulating hsa-miR-5096 predictsFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  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

9 authors.

Neha KulkarniDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Luca AlessandrìDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Riccardo PaneroDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Maddalena ArigoniDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Martina OliveroDepartment of Oncology, University of Torino, Candiolo, Italy.
Giulio FerreroDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Francesca CorderoDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. francesca.cordero@unito.it.
Marco BeccutiDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Raffaele A CalogeroDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy. raffaele.calogero@unito.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReproducibility of a research is a key element in the modern science and it is mandatory for any industrial application. It represents the ability of replicating an experiment independently by the location and the operator. Therefore, a study can be considered reproducible only if all used data are available and the exploited computational analysis workflow is clearly described. However, today for reproducing a complex bioinformatics analysis, the raw data and the list of tools used in the workflow could be not enough to guarantee the reproducibility of the results obtained. Indeed, different releases of the same tools and/or of the system libraries (exploited by such tools) might lead to sneaky reproducibility issues.

resultsTo address this challenge, we established the Reproducible Bioinformatics Project (RBP), which is a non-profit and open-source project, whose aim is to provide a schema and an infrastructure, based on docker images and R package, to provide reproducible results in Bioinformatics. One or more Docker images are then defined for a workflow (typically one for each task), while the workflow implementation is handled via R-functions embedded in a package available at github repository. Thus, a bioinformatician participating to the project has firstly to integrate her/his workflow modules into Docker image(s) exploiting an Ubuntu docker image developed ad hoc by RPB to make easier this task. Secondly, the workflow implementation must be realized in R according to an R-skeleton function made available by RPB to guarantee homogeneity and reusability among different RPB functions. Moreover she/he has to provide the R vignette explaining the package functionality together with an example dataset which can be used to improve the user confidence in the workflow utilization.

conclusionsReproducible Bioinformatics Project provides a general schema and an infrastructure to distribute robust and reproducible workflows. Thus, it guarantees to final users the ability to repeat consistently any analysis independently by the used UNIX-like architecture.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyHumansMicroRNAsReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareUser-Computer InterfaceWorkflowMicroRNAsChromatin Immuno precipitation sequencingCommunityDockermicroRNA sequencingReproducible researchSingle nucleotide variantsWhole transcriptome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID30367595
PMCPMC6191970

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.