Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30950793›Full record

ArticleeLife2019

The challenges of big data biology.

Sabina Leonelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Unified and pluralistic ideals for data sharing and reuse in biodiversity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Post-translational Modifications in Brain Diseases: A Future for Biomarkers.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Data Management and Modeling in Plant Biology.Frontiers in plant science · 2021
    Review
  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

1 author.

Sabina LeonelliDepartment of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7815-6609

Funding

Alan Turing Institute EP/N510129/1Australian Research Council DP160102989H2020 European Research Council 335925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The availability of big data has the potential to transform many areas of the life sciences and usher in new ways of doing research. Here, I argue that big data biology also raises fundamental questions in the philosophy of science: for example, what is a good dataset, and how can reliable knowledge be extracted from big data? Collaborations between biologists, data scientists and philosophers of science will help us to answer these and other questions.

Indexed as

Big DataBiomedical ResearchElectronic Data ProcessingIntersectoral Collaborationbig dataepistemologyphilosophy of sciencepluralism

Identifiers

PMID30950793
PMCPMC6450665

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.