Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30864323›Full record

ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2019

Semantic workflows for benchmark challenges: Enhancing comparability, reusability and reproducibility.

Arunima Srivastava, Ravali Adusumilli, Hunter Boyce, Daniel Garijo, Varun Ratnakar, Rajiv Mayani, Thomas Yu, Raghu Machiraju, Yolanda Gil, Parag Mallick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Illuminating the "Twilight Zone": Advances in Difficult Protein Modeling.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Arunima SrivastavaComputer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, 2015 Neil Ave Columbus, OH 43210, USA, srivatava.1@osu.edu.
Ravali Adusumilli
Hunter Boyce
Daniel Garijo
Varun Ratnakar
Rajiv Mayani
Thomas Yu
Raghu Machiraju
Yolanda Gil
Parag Mallick

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCEST15LM007033 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SYLVIA KATINA PLEVRITIS · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
Biomedical Data Science Graduate Training at StanfordT32LM012409 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PLEVRITIS, SYLVIA KATINA · 2016 to 2020
$1.5M
A Discovery Engine For Reproducible and Comparable Multi-Omic AnalysisR01GM117097 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GIL, YOLANDA, MALLICK, PARAG KUMAR · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM117097NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007033NLM NIH HHS T32 LM012409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Benchmark challenges, such as the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) and Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods (DREAM) have been instrumental in driving the development of bioinformatics methods. Typically, challenges are posted, and then competitors perform a prediction based upon blinded test data. Challengers then submit their answers to a central server where they are scored. Recent efforts to automate these challenges have been enabled by systems in which challengers submit Docker containers, a unit of software that packages up code and all of its dependencies, to be run on the cloud. Despite their incredible value for providing an unbiased test-bed for the bioinformatics community, there remain opportunities to further enhance the potential impact of benchmark challenges. Specifically, current approaches only evaluate end-to-end performance; it is nearly impossible to directly compare methodologies or parameters. Furthermore, the scientific community cannot easily reuse challengers' approaches, due to lack of specifics, ambiguity in tools and parameters as well as problems in sharing and maintenance. Lastly, the intuition behind why particular steps are used is not captured, as the proposed workflows are not explicitly defined, making it cumbersome to understand the flow and utilization of data. Here we introduce an approach to overcome these limitations based upon the WINGS semantic workflow system. Specifically, WINGS enables researchers to submit complete semantic workflows as challenge submissions. By submitting entries as workflows, it then becomes possible to compare not just the results and performance of a challenger, but also the methodology employed. This is particularly important when dozens of challenge entries may use nearly identical tools, but with only subtle changes in parameters (and radical differences in results). WINGS uses a component driven workflow design and offers intelligent parameter and data selection by reasoning about data characteristics. This proves to be especially critical in bioinformatics workflows where using default or incorrect parameter values is prone to drastically altering results. Different challenge entries may be readily compared through the use of abstract workflows, which also facilitate reuse. WINGS is housed on a cloud based setup, which stores data, dependencies and workflows for easy sharing and utility. It also has the ability to scale workflow executions using distributed computing through the Pegasus workflow execution system. We demonstrate the application of this architecture to the DREAM proteogenomic challenge.

Indexed as

SemanticsWorkflowAlgorithmsBenchmarkingComputational BiologyGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsMetadataProteinsReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, RNAProteins

Identifiers

PMID30864323
PMCPMC6417805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.