ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2018
FAIRness and Usability for Open-access Omics Data Systems.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating LC-HRMS metabolomics data processing software using FAIR principles for research software.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2023Pooled it
- Mass Spectrometry-Based Chromatographic and Computational Workflows for Biomarker and Therapeutic Target Discovery: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedical chromatography : BMC · 2026Review
- Integrated Platforms to Further Advance Space Biology Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Microbiology Galaxy Lab: The first community-driven gateway for reproducible and FAIR analysis of microbial data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials.Nature protocols · 2024Review
- Operationalizing and digitizing person-centered daily functioning: a case for functionomics.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Biological horizons: pioneering open science in the cosmos.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Inspiration4 data access through the NASA Open Science Data Repository.NPJ microgravity · 2024Article
- Findability of UK health datasets available for research: a mixed methods study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2022Article
- Reply to: Prospects and challenges for FAIR toxicogenomics data.Nature nanotechnology · 2022Article
- Towards FAIR nanosafety data.Nature nanotechnology · 2021Article
- Rad-Bio-App: a discovery environment for biologists to explore spaceflight-related radiation exposures.NPJ microgravity · 2021Article
- NASA GeneLab: interfaces for the exploration of space omics data.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- A New Era for Space Life Science: International Standards for Space Omics Processing.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Review
- Amplifying Domain Expertise in Clinical Data Pipelines.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Ten simple rules for annotating sequencing experiments.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Omics data sharing is crucial to the biological research community, and the last decade or two has seen a huge rise in collaborative analysis systems, databases, and knowledge bases for omics and other systems biology data. We assessed the "FAIRness" of NASA's GeneLab Data Systems (GLDS) along with four similar kinds of systems in the research omics data domain, using 14 FAIRness metrics. The range of overall FAIRness scores was 6-12 (out of 14), average 10.1, and standard deviation 2.4. The range of Pass ratings for the metrics was 29-79%, Partial Pass 0-21%, and Fail 7-50%. The systems we evaluated performed the best in the areas of data findability and accessibility, and worst in the area of data interoperability. Reusability of metadata, in particular, was frequently not well supported. We relate our experiences implementing semantic integration of omics data from some of the assessed systems for federated querying and retrieval functions, given their shortcomings in data interoperability. Finally, we propose two new principles that Big Data system developers, in particular, should consider for maximizing data accessibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30815061PMC6371294What 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.