ReviewACS omega2020
Crowd-Sourced Chemistry: Considerations for Building a Standardized Database to Improve Omic Analyses.
Review in ACS omega, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- PubChem synonym filtering process using crowdsourcing.Journal of cheminformatics · 2024Article
- Collision Cross-Section Calibration Strategy for Lipid Measurements in SLIM-Based High-Resolution Ion Mobility.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2022Article
- Combining Isotopologue Workflows and Simultaneous Multidimensional Separations to Detect, Identify, and Validate Metabolites in Untargeted Analyses.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Improving the Speed and Selectivity of Newborn Screening Using Ion Mobility Spectrometry-Mass Spectrometry.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Who Is Metabolizing What? Discovering Novel Biomolecules in the Microbiome and the Organisms Who Make Them.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS) is used in multiple omics disciplines to generate large collections of data. This data enables advancements in biomedical research by providing global profiles of a given system. One of the main barriers to generating these profiles is the inability to accurately annotate omics data, especially small molecules. To complement pre-existing large databases that are not quite complete, research groups devote efforts to generating personal libraries to annotate their data. Scientific progress is impeded during the generation of these personal libraries because the data contained within them is often redundant and/or incompatible with other databases. To overcome these redundancies and incompatibilities, we propose that communal, crowd-sourced databases be curated in a standardized fashion. A small number of groups have shown this model is feasible and successful. While the needs of a specific field will dictate the functionality of a communal database, we discuss some features to consider during database development. Special emphasis is made on standardization of terminology, documentation, format, reference materials, and quality assurance practices. These standardization procedures enable a field to have higher confidence in the quality of the data within a given database. We also discuss the three conceptual pillars of database design as well as how crowd-sourcing is practiced. Generating open-source databases requires front-end effort, but the result is a well curated, high quality data set that all can use. Having a resource such as this fosters collaboration and scientific advancement.
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.