Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34737383›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Design considerations for workflow management systems use in production genomics research and the clinic.

Azza E Ahmed, Joshua M Allen, Tajesvi Bhat, Prakruthi Burra, Christina E Fliege, Steven N Hart, Jacob R Heldenbrand, Matthew E Hudson, Dave Deandre Istanto, Michael T Kalmbach and 10 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Managing workflow executions with WESkit.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Ten quick tips for building FAIR workflows.PLoS computational biology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

20 authors.

Azza E AhmedFaculty of Science, Center for Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, University of Khartoum, 11111, Khartoum, Sudan. azzaea@gmail.com.
Joshua M AllenNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Tajesvi BhatNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Prakruthi BurraNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Christina E FliegeNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Steven N HartDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Jacob R HeldenbrandNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Matthew E HudsonNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Dave Deandre IstantoDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Michael T KalmbachDepartment of Information Technology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Gregory D KapraunDepartment of Information Technology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Katherine I KendigNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Matthew Charles KendziorNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Eric W KleeDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Nate MattsonDepartment of Information Technology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Christian A RossLaboratory Pathology and Extramural Applications, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Sami M SharifDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Khartoum, 11111, Khartoum, Sudan.
Ramshankar VenkatakrishnanNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Faisal M FadlelmolaFaculty of Science, Center for Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, University of Khartoum, 11111, Khartoum, Sudan.
Liudmila S MainzerNational Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.

Funding

H3ABioNet: a sustainable African Bioinformatics Network for H3AfricaU41HG006941 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI MULDER, NICOLA · 2012 to 2017
$14.8M
National Institutes of Health Common Fund U41HG006941NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG006941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The changing landscape of genomics research and clinical practice has created a need for computational pipelines capable of efficiently orchestrating complex analysis stages while handling large volumes of data across heterogeneous computational environments. Workflow Management Systems (WfMSs) are the software components employed to fill this gap. This work provides an approach and systematic evaluation of key features of popular bioinformatics WfMSs in use today: Nextflow, CWL, and WDL and some of their executors, along with Swift/T, a workflow manager commonly used in high-scale physics applications. We employed two use cases: a variant-calling genomic pipeline and a scalability-testing framework, where both were run locally, on an HPC cluster, and in the cloud. This allowed for evaluation of those four WfMSs in terms of language expressiveness, modularity, scalability, robustness, reproducibility, interoperability, ease of development, along with adoption and usage in research labs and healthcare settings. This article is trying to answer, which WfMS should be chosen for a given bioinformatics application regardless of analysis type?. The choice of a given WfMS is a function of both its intrinsic language and engine features. Within bioinformatics, where analysts are a mix of dry and wet lab scientists, the choice is also governed by collaborations and adoption within large consortia and technical support provided by the WfMS team/community. As the community and its needs continue to evolve along with computational infrastructure, WfMSs will also evolve, especially those with permissive licenses that allow commercial use. In much the same way as the dataflow paradigm and containerization are now well understood to be very useful in bioinformatics applications, we will continue to see innovations of tools and utilities for other purposes, like big data technologies, interoperability, and provenance.

Indexed as

SoftwareWorkflowBig DataComputational BiologyGenomicsHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID34737383
PMCPMC8569008

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.