ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2018
20 GB in 10 minutes: a case for linking major biodiversity databases using an open socio-technical infrastructure and a pragmatic, cross-institutional collaboration.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Paying it forward: Crowdsourcing the harmonisation and linking of taxon names and biodiversity identifiers.Biodiversity data journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity information is made available through numerous databases that each have their own data models, web services, and data types. Combining data across databases leads to new insights, but is not easy because each database uses its own system of identifiers. In the absence of stable and interoperable identifiers, databases are often linked using taxonomic names. This labor intensive, error prone, and lengthy process relies on accessible versions of nomenclatural authorities and fuzzy-matching algorithms. To approach the challenge of linking diverse data, more than technology is needed. New social collaborations like the Global Unified Open Data Architecture (GUODA) that combines skills from diverse groups of computer engineers from iDigBio, server resources from the Advanced Computing and Information Systems (ACIS) Lab, global-scale data presentation from EOL, and independent developers and researchers are what is needed to make concrete progress on finding relationships between biodiversity datasets. This paper will discuss a technical solution developed by the GUODA collaboration for faster linking across databases with a use case linking Wikidata and the Global Biotic Interactions database (GloBI). The GUODA infrastructure is a 12-node, high performance computing cluster made up of about 192 threads with 12 TB of storage and 288 GB memory. Using GUODA, 20 GB of compressed JSON from Wikidata was processed and linked to GloBI in about 10-11 min. Instead of comparing name strings or relying on a single identifier, Wikidata and GloBI were linked by comparing graphs of biodiversity identifiers external to each system. This method resulted in adding 119,957 Wikidata links in GloBI, an increase of 13.7% of all outgoing name links in GloBI. Wikidata and GloBI were compared to Open Tree of Life Reference Taxonomy to examine consistency and coverage. The process of parsing Wikidata, Open Tree of Life Reference Taxonomy and GloBI archives and calculating consistency metrics was done in minutes on the GUODA platform. As a model collaboration, GUODA has the potential to revolutionize biodiversity science by bringing diverse technically minded people together with high performance computing resources that are accessible from a laptop or desktop. However, participating in such a collaboration still requires basic programming skills.
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.