ReviewiScience2022
Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines.
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.
- Review
- Article
- Machine learning approaches for data-driven hydrocarbon bioaugmentation and phytoremediation: the role of multi-omics insights.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Computational Metagenomics: State of the Art.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- How credible is REACH regulation without transparency, quality criteria, assurance, and control?Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Uncertainty Quantification for Epidemic Risk Management: Case of SARS-CoV-2 in Morocco.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying uncertainty associated with our models is the only way we can express how much we know about any phenomenon. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to overstated conclusions with real-world impacts in diverse spheres, including conservation, epidemiology, climate science, and policy. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, we still know little about how different fields quantify and report uncertainty. We introduce the "sources of uncertainty" framework, using it to conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and political sciences. Our interdisciplinary audit shows no field fully considers all possible sources of uncertainty, but each has its own best practices alongside shared outstanding challenges. We make ten easy-to-implement recommendations to improve the consistency, completeness, and clarity of reporting on model-related uncertainty. These recommendations serve as a guide to best practices across scientific fields and expand our toolbox for high-quality research.
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.