ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Will it run?-A proof of concept for smoke testing decentralized data analytics experiments.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- PASTA-4-PHT: a pipeline for automated security and technical audits for the personal health train.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- OHDSI-compliance: a set of document templates facilitating the implementation and operation of a software stack for real-world evidence generation.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing interest in data-driven medicine, in conjunction with the formation of initiatives such as the European Health Data Space (EHDS) has demonstrated the need for methodologies that are capable of facilitating privacy-preserving data analysis. Distributed Analytics (DA) as an enabler for privacy-preserving analysis across multiple data sources has shown its potential to support data-intensive research. However, the application of DA creates new challenges stemming from its distributed nature, such as identifying single points of failure (SPOFs) in DA tasks before their actual execution. Failing to detect such SPOFs can, for example, result in improper termination of the DA code, necessitating additional efforts from multiple stakeholders to resolve the malfunctions. Moreover, these malfunctions disrupt the seamless conduct of DA and entail several crucial consequences, including technical obstacles to resolve the issues, potential delays in research outcomes, and increased costs. In this study, we address this challenge by introducing a concept based on a method called Smoke Testing, an initial and foundational test run to ensure the operability of the analysis code. We review existing DA platforms and systematically extract six specific Smoke Testing criteria for DA applications. With these criteria in mind, we create an interactive environment called Development Environment for AuTomated and Holistic Smoke Testing of Analysis-Runs (DEATHSTAR), which allows researchers to perform Smoke Tests on their DA experiments. We conduct a user-study with 29 participants to assess our environment and additionally apply it to three real use cases. The results of our evaluation validate its effectiveness, revealing that 96.6% of the analyses created and (Smoke) tested by participants using our approach successfully terminated without any errors. Thus, by incorporating Smoke Testing as a fundamental method, our approach helps identify potential malfunctions early in the development process, ensuring smoother data-driven research within the scope of DA. Through its flexibility and adaptability to diverse real use cases, our solution enables more robust and efficient development of DA experiments, which contributes to their reliability.
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.