Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30379882›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A large-scale analysis of bioinformatics code on GitHub.

Pamela H Russell, Rachel L Johnson, Shreyas Ananthan, Benjamin Harnke, Nichole E Carlson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Improving bioinformatics software quality through teamwork.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Molecular bases of responses to abiotic stress in trees.Journal of experimental botany · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Pamela H RussellDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2997-6392
Rachel L JohnsonDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States of America.
Shreyas AnanthanHigh-Performance Algorithms and Complex Fluids, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, United States of America.
Benjamin HarnkeHealth Sciences Library, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States of America.
Nichole E CarlsonDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States of America.

Funding

Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001082 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2013 to 2017
$48.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001082
6 · The paper itself

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

GenomeBibliometricsComputational BiologyDatasets as TopicHumansInternetMetadataSoftware

Identifiers

PMID30379882
PMCPMC6209220

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.