Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34435200›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2022

Invited Commentary: Standards, Inputs, and Outputs-Strategies for Improving Data-Sharing and Consortia-Based Epidemiologic Research.

James V Lacey, Jennifer L Benbow

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Characteristics of Cancer Epidemiology Studies That Employ Metabolomics: A Scoping Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James V Lacey
Jennifer L Benbow

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data-sharing improves epidemiologic research, but the sharing of data frustrates epidemiologic researchers. The inefficiencies of current methods and options for data-sharing are increasingly documented and easily understood by any study group that has shared its data and any researcher who has received shared data. In this issue of the Journal, Temprosa et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;191(1):147-158) describe how the Consortium of Metabolomics Studies (COMETS) developed and deployed a flexible analytical platform to eliminate key pain points in large-scale metabolomics research. COMETS Analytics includes an online tool, but its cloud computing and technology are the supporting rather than the leading actors in this script. The COMETS team identified the need to standardize diverse and inconsistent metabolomics and covariate data and models across its many participating cohort studies, and then developed a flexible tool that gave its member studies choices about how they wanted to meet the consortium's analytical requirements. Different specialties will have different specific research needs and will probably continue to use and develop an array of diverse analytical and technical solutions for their projects. COMETS Analytics shows how important-and enabling-the upstream attention to data standards and data consistency is to producing high-quality metabolomics, consortia-based, and large-scale epidemiology research.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationMetabolomicsEpidemiologic StudiesHumansReference Standardscommon data modeldata analysisdata harmonizationdata poolingepidemiologic methodsmetabolomicsprospective studies

Identifiers

PMID34435200

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.