Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34242248›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A tool for assessing alignment of biomedical data repositories with open, FAIR, citation and trustworthy principles.

Fiona Murphy, Michael Bar-Sinai, Maryann E Martone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Common Fund Data Ecosystem (CFDE).bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fiona MurphyMoreBrains Cooperative Ltd, Chichester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1693-1240
Michael Bar-SinaiDepartment of Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and The Institute of Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University, Beersheba, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-0153-8465
Maryann E MartoneDepartment of Neurosciences, SciCrunch, Inc., University of California, San Diego, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8406-3871

Funding

NIDDK Network Coordinating UnitU24DK097771 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Shuibing Chen, Jeffrey S. Grethe · 2013 to 2026
$20.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS U24 DK097771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing attention is being paid to the operation of biomedical data repositories in light of efforts to improve how scientific data is handled and made available for the long term. Multiple groups have produced recommendations for functions that biomedical repositories should support, with many using requirements of the FAIR data principles as guidelines. However, FAIR is but one set of principles that has arisen out of the open science community. They are joined by principles governing open science, data citation and trustworthiness, all of which are important aspects for biomedical data repositories to support. Together, these define a framework for data repositories that we call OFCT: Open, FAIR, Citable and Trustworthy. Here we developed an instrument using the open source PolicyModels toolkit that attempts to operationalize key aspects of OFCT principles and piloted the instrument by evaluating eight biomedical community repositories listed by the NIDDK Information Network (dkNET.org). Repositories included both specialist repositories that focused on a particular data type or domain, in this case diabetes and metabolomics, and generalist repositories that accept all data types and domains. The goal of this work was both to obtain a sense of how much the design of current biomedical data repositories align with these principles and to augment the dkNET listing with additional information that may be important to investigators trying to choose a repository, e.g., does the repository fully support data citation? The evaluation was performed from March to November 2020 through inspection of documentation and interaction with the sites by the authors. Overall, although there was little explicit acknowledgement of any of the OFCT principles in our sample, the majority of repositories provided at least some support for their tenets.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualHumansInformation DisseminationInformation ServicesMetabolomicsNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U.S.)United States

Identifiers

PMID34242248
PMCPMC8270168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.