ArticleNeuroinformatics2022
Excavating FAIR Data: the Case of the Multicenter Animal Spinal Cord Injury Study (MASCIS), Blood Pressure, and Neuro-Recovery.
Article in Neuroinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Revisiting the critical roles of reactive microglia in traumatic brain injury.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Review
- Translational Outcomes Project in Neurotrauma (TOP-NT) Pre-Clinical Consortium Study: A Synopsis.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Article
- Prospective Harmonization, Common Data Elements, and Sharing Strategies for Multicenter Pre-Clinical Traumatic Brain Injury Research in the Translational Outcomes Project in Neurotrauma Consortium.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Article
- Data reporting quality and semantic interoperability increase with community-based data elements (CoDEs). Analysis of the open data commons for spinal cord injury (ODC-SCI).Experimental neurology · 2025Article
- Autonomic dysfunction and hemodynamic management after acute spinal cord injury: blood pressure targets, perfusion strategies, and emerging therapies.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- A minimal metadata set (MNMS) to repurpose nonclinical in vivo data for biomedical research.Lab animal · 2024Review
- Contrasting Experimental Rodent Aftercare With Human Clinical Treatment for Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: Bridging the Translational "Valley of Death".Journal of neurotrauma · 2023Review
- Increasing Rigor of Preclinical Research to Maximize Opportunities for Translation.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023Review
- The past, present and future of neuroscience data sharing: a perspective on the state of practices and infrastructure for FAIR.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2023Review
- Pathophysiology, Classification and Comorbidities after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Harmonization-Information Trade-Offs for Sharing Individual Participant Data in Biomedicine.Harvard data science review · 2022Article
- Expert-augmented automated machine learning optimizes hemodynamic predictors of spinal cord injury outcome.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analyses suggest that the published literature represents only a small minority of the total data collected in biomedical research, with most becoming 'dark data' unreported in the literature. Dark data is due to publication bias toward novel results that confirm investigator hypotheses and omission of data that do not. Publication bias contributes to scientific irreproducibility and failures in bench-to-bedside translation. Sharing dark data by making it Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) may reduce the burden of irreproducible science by increasing transparency and support data-driven discoveries beyond the lifecycle of the original study. We illustrate feasibility of dark data sharing by recovering original raw data from the Multicenter Animal Spinal Cord Injury Study (MASCIS), an NIH-funded multi-site preclinical drug trial conducted in the 1990s that tested efficacy of several therapies after a spinal cord injury (SCI). The original drug treatments did not produce clear positive results and MASCIS data were stored in boxes for more than two decades. The goal of the present study was to independently confirm published machine learning findings that perioperative blood pressure is a major predictor of SCI neuromotor outcome (Nielson et al., 2015). We recovered, digitized, and curated the data from 1125 rats from MASCIS. Analyses indicated that high perioperative blood pressure at the time of SCI is associated with poorer health and worse neuromotor outcomes in more severe SCI, whereas low perioperative blood pressure is associated with poorer health and worse neuromotor outcome in moderate SCI. These findings confirm and expand prior results that a narrow window of blood-pressure control optimizes outcome, and demonstrate the value of recovering dark data for assessing reproducibility of findings with implications for precision therapeutic approaches.
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.