ReviewNature protocols2024
A template wizard for the cocreation of machine-readable data-reporting to harmonize the evaluation of (nano)materials.
Review in Nature protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Developing a New Approach Methodology Framework to Assess Biological Responses to Nanoplastics: Insights from Polystyrene and Biodegradable Particles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI-driven nanomedicine for cancer theranostics.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Advances of Green-Synthesized Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications.BioMed research international · 2026Review
- 33 Unresolved Questions in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.ACS nano · 2025Article
- High-throughput screening data generation, scoring and FAIRification: a case study on nanomaterials.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- CompSafeNano project: NanoInformatics approaches for safe-by-design nanomaterials.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 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
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Making research data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) is typically hampered by a lack of skills in technical aspects of data management by data generators and a lack of resources. We developed a Template Wizard for researchers to easily create templates suitable for consistently capturing data and metadata from their experiments. The templates are easy to use and enable the compilation of machine-readable metadata to accompany data generation and align them to existing community standards and databases, such as eNanoMapper, streamlining the adoption of the FAIR principles. These templates are citable objects and are available as online tools. The Template Wizard is designed to be user friendly and facilitates using and reusing existing templates for new projects or project extensions. The wizard is accompanied by an online template validator, which allows self-evaluation of the template (to ensure mapping to the data schema and machine readability of the captured data) and transformation by an open-source parser into machine-readable formats, compliant with the FAIR principles. The templates are based on extensive collective experience in nanosafety data collection and include over 60 harmonized data entry templates for physicochemical characterization and hazard assessment (cell viability, genotoxicity, environmental organism dose-response tests, omics), as well as exposure and release studies. The templates are generalizable across fields and have already been extended and adapted for microplastics and advanced materials research. The harmonized templates improve the reliability of interlaboratory comparisons, data reuse and meta-analyses and can facilitate the safety evaluation and regulation process for (nano) materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38755447What 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.