ArticleHuman genetics2022
Validating the knowledge bank approach for personalized prediction of survival in acute myeloid leukemia: a reproducibility study.
Article in Human genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Genomic and Clinical Data in AML: Real-World Application of the Sanger Multistage Model.Genes · 2026Article
- Generating unseen diseases patient data using ontology enhanced generative adversarial networks.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility is not only essential for the integrity of scientific research but is also a prerequisite for model validation and refinement for the future application of predictive algorithms. However, reproducible research is becoming increasingly challenging, particularly in high-dimensional genomic data analyses with complex statistical or algorithmic techniques. Given that there are no mandatory requirements in most biomedical and statistical journals to provide the original data, analytical source code, or other relevant materials for publication, accessibility to these supplements naturally suggests a greater credibility of the published work. In this study, we performed a reproducibility assessment of the notable paper by Gerstung et al. (Nat Genet 49:332-340, 2017) by rerunning the analysis using their original code and data, which are publicly accessible. Despite an open science setting, it was challenging to reproduce the entire research project; reasons included: incomplete data and documentation, suboptimal code readability, coding errors, limited portability of intensive computing performed on a specific platform, and an R computing environment that could no longer be re-established. We learn that the availability of code and data does not guarantee transparency and reproducibility of a study; paradoxically, the source code is still liable to error and obsolescence, essentially due to methodological and computational complexity, a lack of reproducibility checking at submission, and updates for software and operating environment. The complex code may also hide problematic methodological aspects of the proposed research. Building on the experience gained, we discuss the best programming and software engineering practices that could have been employed to improve reproducibility, and propose practical criteria for the conduct and reporting of reproducibility studies for future researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.