Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37919302›Full record

ArticleScientific data2023

Subjective data models in bioinformatics and how wet lab and computational biologists conceptualise data.

Yo Yehudi, Lukas Hughes-Noehrer, Carole Goble, Caroline Jay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Yo YehudiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. yochannah.yehudi@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2705-1724
Lukas Hughes-NoehrerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9167-0397
Carole GobleDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1219-2137
Caroline JayDepartment of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6080-1382

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological science produces "big data" in varied formats, which necessitates using computational tools to process, integrate, and analyse data. Researchers using computational biology tools range from those using computers for communication, to those writing analysis code. We examine differences in how researchers conceptualise the same data, which we call "subjective data models". We interviewed 22 people with biological experience and varied levels of computational experience, and found that many had fluid subjective data models that changed depending on circumstance. Surprisingly, results did not cluster around participants' computational experience levels. People did not consistently map entities from abstract data models to the real-world entities in files, and certain data identifier formats were easier to infer meaning from than others. Real-world implications: 1) software engineers should design interfaces for task performance, emulating popular user interfaces, rather than targeting professional backgrounds; 2) when insufficient context is provided, people may guess what data means, whether or not they are correct, emphasising the importance of contextual metadata to remove the need for erroneous guesswork.

Identifiers

PMID37919302
PMCPMC10622411

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.