Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39076354›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Co-designing a wiki-based community knowledge management system for personal science.

Katharina Kloppenborg, Mad Price Ball, Steven Jonas, Gary Isaac Wolf, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Katharina KloppenborgInserm U1284, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Mad Price BallOpen Humans Foundation, Sanford, NC, USA.
Steven JonasQuantified Self Labs, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Gary Isaac WolfQuantified Self Labs, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Bastian Greshake TzovarasInserm U1284, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9925-9623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal science is the practice of addressing personally relevant health questions through self-research. Implementing personal science can be challenging, owing to the need to develop and adopt research protocols, tools and methods. While online communities can provide valuable peer support, tools for systematically accessing community knowledge are lacking. The objective of this study is to apply a participatory design process involving a community of personal science practitioners to develop a peer-produced knowledge base that supports the needs of practitioners as consumers and contributors of knowledge. The process led to the development of the Personal Science Wiki, an open repository for documenting and accessing individual self-tracking projects while facilitating the establishment of consensus knowledge. After initial design iterations and a field testing phase, we performed a user study with 21 participants to test and improve the platform, and to explore suitable information architectures. The study deepened our understanding of barriers to scaling the personal science community, established an infrastructure for knowledge management actively used by the community and provided lessons on challenges, information needs, representations and architectures to support individuals with their personal health inquiries.

Indexed as

citizen scienceco-creationpatient-led researchpeer productionpersonal sciencewikis

Identifiers

PMID39076354
PMCPMC11285521

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.