Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37150537›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2022

A workflow reproducibility scale for automatic validation of biological interpretation results.

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. HPD-Kit: a comprehensive toolkit for pathogen detection and analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

backgroundReproducibility of data analysis workflow is a key issue in the field of bioinformatics. Recent computing technologies, such as virtualization, have made it possible to reproduce workflow execution with ease. However, the reproducibility of results is not well discussed; that is, there is no standard way to verify whether the biological interpretation of reproduced results is the same. Therefore, it still remains a challenge to automatically evaluate the reproducibility of results.

resultsWe propose a new metric, a reproducibility scale of workflow execution results, to evaluate the reproducibility of results. This metric is based on the idea of evaluating the reproducibility of results using biological feature values (e.g., number of reads, mapping rate, and variant frequency) representing their biological interpretation. We also implemented a prototype system that automatically evaluates the reproducibility of results using the proposed metric. To demonstrate our approach, we conducted an experiment using workflows used by researchers in real research projects and the use cases that are frequently encountered in the field of bioinformatics.

conclusionsOur approach enables automatic evaluation of the reproducibility of results using a fine-grained scale. By introducing our approach, it is possible to evolve from a binary view of whether the results are superficially identical or not to a more graduated view. We believe that our approach will contribute to more informed discussion on reproducibility in bioinformatics.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyResearch PersonnelHumansReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareWorkflowprovenancereproducibilityworkflow

Identifiers

PMID37150537
PMCPMC10164546

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.