Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39178413›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Provenance Information for Biomedical Data and Workflows: Scoping Review.

Kerstin Gierend, Frank Krüger, Sascha Genehr, Francisca Hartmann, Fabian Siegel, Dagmar Waltemath, Thomas Ganslandt, Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [FAIR health data in the national and international data space].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Bridging the Scientific Knowledge Gap and Reproducibility: A Survey of Provenance, Assertion and Evidence Ontologies.Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference
    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

8 authors.

Kerstin GierendDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Mannheim Institute for intelligent Systems in Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0417-3454
Frank KrügerFaculty of Engineering, Wismar University of Applied Sciences, Wismar, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7925-3363
Sascha GenehrInstitute of Communications Engineering, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1702-6878
Francisca HartmannDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Mannheim Institute for intelligent Systems in Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0009-0009-2727-9148
Fabian SiegelDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Mannheim Institute for intelligent Systems in Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9673-5030
Dagmar WaltemathDepartment of Medical Informatics, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5886-5563
Thomas Ganslandt *Chair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6864-8936
Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke *Department of Medical Informatics, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7838-9050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe record of the origin and the history of data, known as provenance, holds importance. Provenance information leads to higher interpretability of scientific results and enables reliable collaboration and data sharing. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence on provenance approaches hinders the uptake of good scientific practice in clinical research.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to identify approaches and criteria for provenance tracking in the biomedical domain. We reviewed the state-of-the-art frameworks, associated artifacts, and methodologies for provenance tracking.

methodsThis scoping review followed the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases for English-language articles published from 2006 to 2022. Title and abstract screening were carried out by 4 independent reviewers using the Rayyan screening tool. A majority vote was required for consent on the eligibility of papers based on the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text reading and screening were performed independently by 2 reviewers, and information was extracted into a pretested template for the 5 research questions. Disagreements were resolved by a domain expert. The study protocol has previously been published.

resultsThe search resulted in a total of 764 papers. Of 624 identified, deduplicated papers, 66 (10.6%) studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We identified diverse provenance-tracking approaches ranging from practical provenance processing and managing to theoretical frameworks distinguishing diverse concepts and details of data and metadata models, provenance components, and notations. A substantial majority investigated underlying requirements to varying extents and validation intensities but lacked completeness in provenance coverage. Mostly, cited requirements concerned the knowledge about data integrity and reproducibility. Moreover, these revolved around robust data quality assessments, consistent policies for sensitive data protection, improved user interfaces, and automated ontology development. We found that different stakeholder groups benefit from the availability of provenance information. Thereby, we recognized that the term provenance is subjected to an evolutionary and technical process with multifaceted meanings and roles. Challenges included organizational and technical issues linked to data annotation, provenance modeling, and performance, amplified by subsequent matters such as enhanced provenance information and quality principles.

conclusionsAs data volumes grow and computing power increases, the challenge of scaling provenance systems to handle data efficiently and assist complex queries intensifies, necessitating automated and scalable solutions. With rising legal and scientific demands, there is an urgent need for greater transparency in implementing provenance systems in research projects, despite the challenges of unresolved granularity and knowledge bottlenecks. We believe that our recommendations enable quality and guide the implementation of auditable and measurable provenance approaches as well as solutions in the daily tasks of biomedical scientists. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/31750.

Indexed as

WorkflowBiomedical ResearchHumansbiomedical researchdata managementhealth care dataprovenancescoping reviewsoftware life cycle

Identifiers

PMID39178413
PMCPMC11380065

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.