Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36654807›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2023

A survey of computable biomedical knowledge repositories.

Jodyn E Platt, Anthony E Solomonides, Philip D Walker, Philip S Amara, Joshua E Richardson, Blackford Middleton, Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge Trust and Policy Work Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Working in biocuration: contemporary experiences and perspectives.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Jodyn E PlattUniversity of Michigan Medical School Department of Learning Health Sciences Ann Arbor Michigan USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4902-4903
Anthony E SolomonidesResearch Institute, NorthShore University HealthSystem Evanston Illinois USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2117-2461
Philip D WalkerAnnette and Irwin Eskind Family Biomedical Library and Learning Center Vanderbilt University Nashville Tennessee USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9104-1200
Philip S AmaraUniversity of Michigan Medical School Department of Learning Health Sciences Ann Arbor Michigan USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8544-3884
Joshua E RichardsonCenter for Health Informatics and Evidence Synthesis RTI International Chicago Illinois USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3066-2673
Blackford MiddletonMobilizing Computable Biomedical Kinowledge Steering Committee Austin Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1819-1234
Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge Trust and Policy Work Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: While data repositories are well-established in clinical and research enterprises, knowledge repositories with shareable computable biomedical knowledge (CBK) are relatively new entities to the digital health ecosystem. Trustworthy knowledge repositories are necessary for learning health systems, but the policies, standards, and practices to promote trustworthy CBK artifacts and methods to share, and safely and effectively use them are not well studied. Methods: We conducted an online survey of 24 organizations in the United States known to be involved in the development or deployment of CBK. The aim of the survey was to assess the current policies and practices governing these repositories and to identify best practices. Descriptive statistics methods were applied to data from 13 responding organizations, to identify common practices and policies instantiating the TRUST principles of Transparency, Responsibility, User Focus, Sustainability, and Technology. Results: All 13 respondents indicated to different degrees adherence to policies that convey TRUST. Conclusion: It is essential that knowledge repositories identify and apply a baseline set of criteria to lay a robust foundation for their trustworthiness leading to optimum uptake, and safe, reliable, and effective use to promote sharing of CBK. Identifying current practices suggests a set of desiderata for the CBK ecosystem in its continued evolution.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportcomputable biomedical knowledgeknowledge managementlearning health carelearning health systems

Identifiers

PMID36654807
PMCPMC9835044

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.