Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35202399›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Ten simple rules for initial data analysis.

Mark Baillie, Saskia le Cessie, Carsten Oliver Schmidt, Lara Lusa, Marianne Huebner, Topic Group “Initial Data Analysis” of the STRATOS Initiative

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Ten simple rules for navigating AI in science.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Research on Selected Wildlife Infections in the Circumpolar Arctic-A Bibliometric Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  17. 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

6 authors.

Mark BaillieNovartis, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5618-0667
Saskia le CessieDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Carsten Oliver SchmidtInstitute for Community Medicine, SHIP-KEF University Medicine of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5266-9396
Lara LusaDepartment of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technology, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-8981-2421
Marianne HuebnerDepartment of Statistics and Probability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9694-9231
Topic Group “Initial Data Analysis” of the STRATOS Initiative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisOvarian NeoplasmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID35202399
PMCPMC8870512

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.