ArticleBioinformatics advances2024
Perspectives on tracking data reuse across biodata resources.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2024. 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.
- BioRels' data infrastructure: a scientific schema and exchange standard to transform and enhance biological data sciences.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- A standards perspective on genomic data reusability and reproducibility.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivation: Data reuse is a common and vital practice in molecular biology and enables the knowledge gathered over recent decades to drive discovery and innovation in the life sciences. Much of this knowledge has been collated into molecular biology databases, such as UniProtKB, and these resources derive enormous value from sharing data among themselves. However, quantifying and documenting this kind of data reuse remains a challenge. Results: The article reports on a one-day virtual workshop hosted by the UniProt Consortium in March 2023, attended by representatives from biodata resources, experts in data management, and NIH program managers. Workshop discussions focused on strategies for tracking data reuse, best practices for reusing data, and the challenges associated with data reuse and tracking. Surveys and discussions showed that data reuse is widespread, but critical information for reproducibility is sometimes lacking. Challenges include costs of tracking data reuse, tensions between tracking data and open sharing, restrictive licenses, and difficulties in tracking commercial data use. Recommendations that emerged from the discussion include: development of standardized formats for documenting data reuse, education about the obstacles posed by restrictive licenses, and continued recognition by funding agencies that data management is a critical activity that requires dedicated resources. Availability and implementation: Summaries of survey results are available at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1j-VU2ifEKb9C-sW6l3ATB79dgHdRk5v_lESv2hawnso/viewanalytics (survey of data providers) and https://docs.google.com/forms/d/18WbJFutUd7qiZoEzbOytFYXSfWFT61hVce0vjvIwIjk/viewanalytics (survey of users).
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.