ReviewiScience2022
Guideline for software life cycle in health informatics.
Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoshare: a publicly available, surgeons-friendly solution to de-identify and manage surgical videos.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Bridging Andrology and Oncology: Prognostic Indicators of Cancer Among Infertile Men.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Digital Ergonomics of NavegApp, a Novel Serious Game for Spatial Cognition Assessment: Content Validity and Usability Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- A nested model for AI design and validation.iScience · 2024Article
- Surface Electromyography in Dentistry-Past, Present and Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Proceedings of the Association for Pathology Informatics Bootcamp 2022.Journal of pathology informatics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The long-lasting trend of medical informatics is to adapt novel technologies in the medical context. In particular, incorporating artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making can significantly improve monitoring, diagnostics, and prognostics for the patient's and medic's sake. However, obstacles hinder a timely technology transfer from research to the clinic. Due to the pressure for novelty in the research context, projects rarely implement quality standards. Here, we propose a guideline for academic software life cycle processes tailored to the needs and capabilities of research organizations. While the complete implementation of a software life cycle according to commercial standards is not feasible in scientific work, we propose a subset of elements that we are convinced will provide a significant benefit while keeping the effort within a feasible range. Ultimately, the emerging quality checks for academic software development can pave the way for an accelerated deployment of academic advances in clinical practice.
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.