ArticlePloS one2018
A large-scale analysis of bioinformatics code on GitHub.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- BioTester: an AI-driven automated testing framework for identifying potential quality risks in bioinformatics software.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Ten quick tips to SNIFF out sustainable and secure scientific software.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- An interactive mindmap of blood film images for automated malaria diagnosis: a comprehensive metadata repository of available datasets.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Review
- Implementing a Version Control Platform as an Interactive Educational Framework for Bioinformatics and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2026Article
- Improving bioinformatics software quality through teamwork.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- BioCoder: a benchmark for bioinformatics code generation with large language models.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- rworkflows: automating reproducible practices for the R community.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A primer on correlation-based dimension reduction methods for multi-omics analysis.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Review
- The role of software in science: a knowledge graph-based analysis of software mentions in PubMed Central.PeerJ. Computer science · 2022Article
- Current Status of Next-Generation Sequencing Approaches for Candidate Gene Discovery in Familial Parkinson´s Disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Molecular bases of responses to abiotic stress in trees.Journal of experimental botany · 2020Review
- Metabolomics and Multi-Omics Integration: A Survey of Computational Methods and Resources.Metabolites · 2020Review
- Bionitio: demonstrating and facilitating best practices for bioinformatics command-line software.GigaScience · 2019Article
- Biobtree: A tool to search, map and visualize bioinformatics identifiers and special keywords.F1000Research · 2019Article
- GitHub Statistics as a Measure of the Impact of Open-Source Bioinformatics Software.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, the explosion of genomic data and bioinformatic tools has been accompanied by a growing conversation around reproducibility of results and usability of software. However, the actual state of the body of bioinformatics software remains largely unknown. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the state of source code in the bioinformatics community, specifically looking at relationships between code properties, development activity, developer communities, and software impact. To investigate these issues, we curated a list of 1,720 bioinformatics repositories on GitHub through their mention in peer-reviewed bioinformatics articles. Additionally, we included 23 high-profile repositories identified by their popularity in an online bioinformatics forum. We analyzed repository metadata, source code, development activity, and team dynamics using data made available publicly through the GitHub API, as well as article metadata. We found key relationships within our dataset, including: certain scientific topics are associated with more active code development and higher community interest in the repository; most of the code in the main dataset is written in dynamically typed languages, while most of the code in the high-profile set is statically typed; developer team size is associated with community engagement and high-profile repositories have larger teams; the proportion of female contributors decreases for high-profile repositories and with seniority level in author lists; and, multiple measures of project impact are associated with the simple variable of whether the code was modified at all after paper publication. In addition to providing the first large-scale analysis of bioinformatics code to our knowledge, our work will enable future analysis through publicly available data, code, and methods. Code to generate the dataset and reproduce the analysis is provided under the MIT license at https://github.com/pamelarussell/github-bioinformatics. Data are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UWHX8.
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.