ArticleF1000Research2023
Ten recommendations for organising bioimaging data for archival.
Article in F1000Research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Organised data is easy to use but the rapid developments in the field of bioimaging, with improvements in instrumentation, detectors, software and experimental techniques, have resulted in an explosion of the volumes of data being generated, making well-organised data an elusive goal. This guide offers a handful of recommendations for bioimage depositors, analysts and microscope and software developers, whose implementation would contribute towards better organised data in preparation for archival. Based on our experience archiving large image datasets in EMPIAR, the BioImage Archive and BioStudies, we propose a number of strategies that we believe would improve the usability (clarity, orderliness, learnability, navigability, self-documentation, coherence and consistency of identifiers, accessibility, succinctness) of future data depositions more useful to the bioimaging community (data authors and analysts, researchers, clinicians, funders, collaborators, industry partners, hardware/software producers, journals, archive developers as well as interested but non-specialist users of bioimaging data). The recommendations that may also find use in other data-intensive disciplines. To facilitate the process of analysing data organisation, we present bandbox, a Python package that provides users with an assessment of their data by flagging potential issues, such as redundant directories or invalid characters in file or folder names, that should be addressed before archival. We offer these recommendations as a starting point and hope to engender more substantial conversations across and between the various data-rich communities.
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.