ArticleGigaScience2020
Data detectives, self-love, and humility: a research parasite's perspective.
Article in GigaScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A standards perspective on genomic data reusability and reproducibility.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- A reasonable request for true data sharing.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- Maximizing the utility of public data.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- SKIOME Project: a curated collection of skin microbiome datasets enriched with study-related metadata.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- On the relationship between research parasites and fairness in machine learning: challenges and opportunities.GigaScience · 2021Article
- A research parasite's perspective on establishing a baseline to avoid errors in secondary analyses.GigaScience · 2021Article
- Microbiome Metadata Standards: Report of the National Microbiome Data Collaborative's Workshop and Follow-On Activities.mSystems · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary analysis solidifies and expands upon scientific knowledge through the re-analysis of existing datasets. However, researchers performing secondary analyses must develop specific skills to be successful and can benefit from adopting some computational best practices. Recognizing this work is also key to building and supporting a community of researchers who contribute to the scientific ecosystem through secondary analyses. The Research Parasite Awards are one such avenue, celebrating outstanding contributions to the rigorous secondary analysis of data. As the recipient of a 2019 Junior Research Parasite Award, I was asked to provide some perspectives on life as a research parasite, which I share in this commentary.
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.