ArticlePLoS biology2020
We need to keep a reproducible trace of facts, predictions, and hypotheses from gene to function in the era of big data.
Article in PLoS biology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- DepPrior: integrating CRISPR dependency predictability with multi-omics reproducibility to prioritize candidate LUAD therapeutic targets.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Beyond blast: enabling microbiologists to better extract literature, taxonomic distributions and gene neighbourhood information for protein families.Microbial genomics · 2024Article
- Beyond Blast: Enabling Microbiologists to Better Extract Literature, Taxonomic Distributions and Gene Neighborhood Information for Protein Families.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- TargetedCell reports methods · 2023Article
- Seminars in immunology special issue: Nutrition, microbiota and immunity The unexplored microbes in health and disease.Seminars in immunology · 2023Review
- Article
- Interpretable network propagation with application to expanding the repertoire of human proteins that interact with SARS-CoV-2.GigaScience · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How do we scale biological science to the demand of next generation biology and medicine to keep track of the facts, predictions, and hypotheses? These days, enormous amounts of DNA sequence and other omics data are generated. Since these data contain the blueprint for life, it is imperative that we interpret it accurately. The abundance of DNA is only one part of the challenge. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and network methods routinely build on large screens, single cell technologies, proteomics, and other modalities to infer or predict biological functions and phenotypes associated with proteins, pathways, and organisms. As a first step, how do we systematically trace the provenance of knowledge from experimental ground truth to gene function predictions and annotations? Here, we review the main challenges in tracking the evolution of biological knowledge and propose several specific solutions to provenance and computational tracing of evidence in functional linkage networks.
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.