Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39794788›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2025

Challenges of reproducible AI in biomedical data science.

Henry Han

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Henry HanThe Laboratory of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Innovation, Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Baylor University, Waco, TX, 76798, USA. Henry_Han@baylor.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing biomedical data science at an unprecedented pace, transforming various aspects of the field with remarkable speed and depth. However, a critical issue remains unclear: how reproducible are the AI models and systems employed in biomedical data science? In this study, we examine the challenges of AI reproducibility by analyzing the factors influenced by data, model, and learning complexities, as well as through a game-theoretical perspective. While adherence to reproducibility standards is essential for the long-term advancement of AI, the conflict between following these standards and aligning with researchers' personal goals remains a significant hurdle in achieving AI reproducibility.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchData ScienceHumansReproducibility of ResultsAIBiomedical dataGame-theoryReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID39794788
PMCPMC11724458

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.