ArticleGigaScience2020
Recommendations to enhance rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research.
Article in GigaScience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Landscape of 2D Deep Learning Segmentation Networks Applied to CT Scan from Lung Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Packaging and containerization of computational methods.Nature protocols · 2024Pooled it
- Interpretations of reproducibility crisis in medical education research: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing translational research in metastatic cancer through an open science environment: the UPTIDER experience.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- The systematic assessment of completeness of public metadata accompanying omics studies in the Gene Expression Omnibus data repository.Genome biology · 2025Article
- "Doctored: fraud, arrogance, and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer's": an important new book with direct relevance to GeroScience.GeroScience · 2025Article
- MRI acquisition and reconstruction cookbook: recipes for reproducibility, served with real-world flavour.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Perceptual and technical barriers in sharing and formatting metadata accompanying omics studies.Cell genomics · 2025Review
- AI-driven multi-omics integration for multi-scale predictive modeling of genotype-environment-phenotype relationships.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A how-to guide for code sharing in biology.PLoS biology · 2024Review
- Genomic reproducibility in the bioinformatics era.Genome biology · 2024Review
- Best practices for data management and sharing in experimental biomedical research.Physiological reviews · 2024Review
- CREDO: a friendly Customizable, REproducible, DOcker file generator for bioinformatics applications.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Article
- A libraries reproducibility hackathon: connecting students to university research and testing the longevity of published code.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Article
- The Quartet Data Portal: integration of community-wide resources for multiomics quality control.Genome biology · 2023Article
- The five pillars of computational reproducibility: bioinformatics and beyond.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomedical research depends increasingly on computational tools, but mechanisms ensuring open data, open software, and reproducibility are variably enforced by academic institutions, funders, and publishers. Publications may present software for which source code or documentation are or become unavailable; this compromises the role of peer review in evaluating technical strength and scientific contribution. Incomplete ancillary information for an academic software package may bias or limit subsequent work. We provide 8 recommendations to improve reproducibility, transparency, and rigor in computational biology-precisely the values that should be emphasized in life science curricula. Our recommendations for improving software availability, usability, and archival stability aim to foster a sustainable data science ecosystem in life science research.
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.