Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569020›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in network physiology2024

Physiological signal analysis and open science using the Julia language and associated software.

George Datseris, Jacob S Zelko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in network physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

George DatserisDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Jacob S ZelkoDepartment of Mathematics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this mini review, we propose the use of the Julia programming language and its software as a strong candidate for reproducible, efficient, and sustainable physiological signal analysis. First, we highlight available software and Julia communities that provide top-of-the-class algorithms for all aspects of physiological signal processing despite the language's relatively young age. Julia can significantly accelerate both research and software development due to its high-level interactive language and high-performance code generation. It is also particularly suited for open and reproducible science. Openness is supported and welcomed because the overwhelming majority of Julia software programs are open source and developed openly on public platforms, primarily through individual contributions. Such an environment increases the likelihood that an individual not (originally) associated with a software program would still be willing to contribute their code, further promoting code sharing and reuse. On the other hand, Julia's exceptionally strong package manager and surrounding ecosystem make it easy to create self-contained, reproducible projects that can be instantly installed and run, irrespective of processor architecture or operating system.

Indexed as

complexity measuresdigital signal processingJuliaopen sciencephysiological signalsreproducibletime series analysis

Identifiers

PMID39569020
PMCPMC11577965

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.