ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
Improving bioinformatics software quality through teamwork.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing a Version Control Platform as an Interactive Educational Framework for Bioinformatics and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2026Article
- Improving the reliability, quality, and maintainability of bioinformatics pipelines with nf-test.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Steering veridical large language model analyses by correcting and enriching generated database queries: first steps toward ChatGPT bioinformatics.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
summarySince high-throughput techniques became a staple in biological science laboratories, computational algorithms, and scientific software have boomed. However, the development of bioinformatics software usually lacks software development quality standards. The resulting software code is hard to test, reuse, and maintain. We believe that the root of inefficiency in implementing the best software development practices in academic settings is the individualistic approach, which has traditionally been the norm for recognizing scientific achievements and, by extension, for developing specialized software. Software development is a collective effort in most software-heavy endeavors. Indeed, the literature suggests teamwork directly impacts code quality through knowledge sharing, collective software development, and established coding standards. In our computational biology research groups, we sustainably involve all group members in learning, sharing, and discussing software development while maintaining the personal ownership of research projects and related software products. We found that group members involved in this endeavor improved their coding skills, became more efficient bioinformaticians, and obtained detailed knowledge about their peers' work, triggering new collaborative projects. We strongly advocate for improving software development culture within bioinformatics through collective effort in computational biology groups or institutes with three or more bioinformaticians. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Additional information and guidance on how to get started is available at https://ferenckata.github.io/ImprovingSoftwareTogether.github.io/.
Indexed as
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.