ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Ten simple rules for quick and dirty scientific programming.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple Confabulations Found in Bioinformatics Tasks Carried Out by Several Free Large Language Models.Current genomics · 2025Article
- Challenging the status quo: A guide to open and reproducible neuroimaging for early career researchers.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Reviewability and supportability: New complementary principles to empower research software practices.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- A how-to guide for code sharing in biology.PLoS biology · 2024Review
- Ten simple rules for training scientists to make better software.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for working with other people's code.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for using public biological data for your research.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for teaching yourself R.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Ten simple rules on writing clean and reliable open-source scientific software.PLoS computational biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.