Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34804501›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2021

Perspectives on automated composition of workflows in the life sciences.

Anna-Lena Lamprecht, Magnus Palmblad, Jon Ison, Veit Schwämmle, Mohammad Sadnan Al Manir, Ilkay Altintas, Christopher J O Baker, Ammar Ben Hadj Amor, Salvador Capella-Gutierrez, Paulos Charonyktakis and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

32 authors.

Anna-Lena LamprechtUtrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1953-5606
Magnus PalmbladLeiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5865-8994
Jon IsonFrench Institute of Bioinformatics, 91057 Évry, France.
Veit SchwämmleUniversity of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9708-6722
Mohammad Sadnan Al ManirUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA.
Ilkay AltintasUniversity of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Christopher J O BakerUniversity of New Brunswick, Saint John, E2L 4L5, Canada.
Ammar Ben Hadj AmorWesterdijk Institute, 3584 CT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Salvador Capella-GutierrezBarcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), 08034, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0309-604X
Paulos CharonyktakisGnosis Data Analysis PC, GR-700 13 Heraklion, Greece.
Michael R CrusoeVU Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2961-9670
Yolanda GilUniversity of Southern California, Marina Del Rey, CA, 90292, USA.
Carole GobleDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Timothy J GriffinDepartment of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6801-2559
Paul GrothUniversity of Amsterdam, 1090 GH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0183-6910
Hans IenasescuTechnical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Pratik JagtapDepartment of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0984-0973
Matúš KalašUniversity of Bergen, 5020 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1509-4981
Vedran KasalicaUtrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Alireza KhanteymooriBioinformatics Group, University of Freiburg, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6811-9196
Tobias KuhnVU Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hailiang MeiSequencing Analysis Support Core, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hervé MénagerInstitut Pasteur, 75015 Paris, France.
Steffen MöllerIBIMA, Rostock University Medical Center, 18057 Rostock, Germany.
Robin A RichardsonNetherlands eScience Center, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9984-2720
Vincent RobertWesterdijk Institute, 3584 CT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stian Soiland-ReyesDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9842-9718
Robert StevensDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Szoke SzaniszloWesterdijk Institute, 3584 CT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Suzan VerberneLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.
Aswin VerhoevenLeiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Katherine WolstencroftLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, 2333 BE Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1279-5133

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific data analyses often combine several computational tools in automated pipelines, or workflows. Thousands of such workflows have been used in the life sciences, though their composition has remained a cumbersome manual process due to a lack of standards for annotation, assembly, and implementation. Recent technological advances have returned the long-standing vision of automated workflow composition into focus. This article summarizes a recent Lorentz Center workshop dedicated to automated composition of workflows in the life sciences. We survey previous initiatives to automate the composition process, and discuss the current state of the art and future perspectives. We start by drawing the "big picture" of the scientific workflow development life cycle, before surveying and discussing current methods, technologies and practices for semantic domain modelling, automation in workflow development, and workflow assessment. Finally, we derive a roadmap of individual and community-based actions to work toward the vision of automated workflow development in the forthcoming years. A central outcome of the workshop is a general description of the workflow life cycle in six stages: 1) scientific question or hypothesis, 2) conceptual workflow, 3) abstract workflow, 4) concrete workflow, 5) production workflow, and 6) scientific results. The transitions between stages are facilitated by diverse tools and methods, usually incorporating domain knowledge in some form. Formal semantic domain modelling is hard and often a bottleneck for the application of semantic technologies. However, life science communities have made considerable progress here in recent years and are continuously improving, renewing interest in the application of semantic technologies for workflow exploration, composition and instantiation. Combined with systematic benchmarking with reference data and large-scale deployment of production-stage workflows, such technologies enable a more systematic process of workflow development than we know today. We believe that this can lead to more robust, reusable, and sustainable workflows in the future.

Indexed as

Biological Science DisciplinesComputational BiologySoftwareWorkflowautomated workflow compositionbioinformaticscomputational pipelineslife sciencesscientific workflowssemantic domain modellingworkflow benchmarking

Identifiers

PMID34804501
PMCPMC8573700

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.