Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38973982›Full record

ReviewSynthetic biology (Oxford, England)2024

Data hazards in synthetic biology.

Natalie R Zelenka, Nina Di Cara, Kieren Sharma, Seeralan Sarvaharman, Jasdeep S Ghataora, Fabio Parmeggiani, Jeff Nivala, Zahraa S Abdallah, Lucia Marucci, Thomas E Gorochowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Synthetic biology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

10 authors.

Natalie R ZelenkaJean Golding Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nina Di CaraSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kieren SharmaSchool of Engineering Mathematics and Technology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Seeralan SarvaharmanSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jasdeep S GhataoraBrisEngBio, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Fabio ParmeggianiBrisEngBio, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jeff NivalaPaul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Zahraa S AbdallahSchool of Engineering Mathematics and Technology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lucia MarucciBrisEngBio, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Thomas E GorochowskiBrisEngBio, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1702-786X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data science is playing an increasingly important role in the design and analysis of engineered biology. This has been fueled by the development of high-throughput methods like massively parallel reporter assays, data-rich microscopy techniques, computational protein structure prediction and design, and the development of whole-cell models able to generate huge volumes of data. Although the ability to apply data-centric analyses in these contexts is appealing and increasingly simple to do, it comes with potential risks. For example, how might biases in the underlying data affect the validity of a result and what might the environmental impact of large-scale data analyses be? Here, we present a community-developed framework for assessing data hazards to help address these concerns and demonstrate its application to two synthetic biology case studies. We show the diversity of considerations that arise in common types of bioengineering projects and provide some guidelines and mitigating steps. Understanding potential issues and dangers when working with data and proactively addressing them will be essential for ensuring the appropriate use of emerging data-intensive AI methods and help increase the trustworthiness of their applications in synthetic biology.

Indexed as

AIdata hazardsdata scienceethicssynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID38973982
PMCPMC11227101

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.