Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36810800›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2022

Workflow sharing with automated metadata validation and test execution to improve the reusability of published workflows.

Hirotaka Suetake, Tsukasa Fukusato, Takeo Igarashi, Tazro Ohta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2022. 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. Review
  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

4 authors.

Hirotaka SuetakeDepartment of Creative Informatics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2765-0049
Tsukasa FukusatoDepartment of Computer Science, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5090-1443
Takeo IgarashiDepartment of Creative Informatics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5495-6441
Tazro OhtaDatabase Center for Life Science, Joint Support-Center for Data Science Research, Research Organization of Information and Systems, Shizuoka 411-8540, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3777-5945

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany open-source workflow systems have made bioinformatics data analysis procedures portable. Sharing these workflows provides researchers easy access to high-quality analysis methods without the requirement of computational expertise. However, published workflows are not always guaranteed to be reliably reusable. Therefore, a system is needed to lower the cost of sharing workflows in a reusable form.

resultsWe introduce Yevis, a system to build a workflow registry that automatically validates and tests workflows to be published. The validation and test are based on the requirements we defined for a workflow being reusable with confidence. Yevis runs on GitHub and Zenodo and allows workflow hosting without the need of dedicated computing resources. A Yevis registry accepts workflow registration via a GitHub pull request, followed by an automatic validation and test process for the submitted workflow. As a proof of concept, we built a registry using Yevis to host workflows from a community to demonstrate how a workflow can be shared while fulfilling the defined requirements.

conclusionsYevis helps in the building of a workflow registry to share reusable workflows without requiring extensive human resources. By following Yevis's workflow-sharing procedure, one can operate a registry while satisfying the reusable workflow criteria. This system is particularly useful to individuals or communities that want to share workflows but lacks the specific technical expertise to build and maintain a workflow registry from scratch.

Indexed as

MetadataSoftwareComputational BiologyHumansWorkflowcontinuous integrationopen sciencereproducibilityreusabilityworkflowworkflow language

Identifiers

PMID36810800
PMCPMC9944229

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.