ArticleScientific data2025
Ensuring Adherence to Standards in Experiment-Related Metadata Entered Via Spreadsheets.
Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- HuBMAP Data Portal: a resource for multimodal spatial and single-cell data of healthy human tissues.ArXiv · 2026Article
- The HuBMAP Framework for Advancing Data FAIRness.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The FAIRSCAPE AI-readiness Framework for Biomedical Research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Knowledge Engineering for Open Science: Building and Deploying Knowledge Bases for Metadata Standards.AI magazine · 2026Article
- The systematic assessment of completeness of public metadata accompanying omics studies in the Gene Expression Omnibus data repository.Genome biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientists increasingly recognize the importance of providing rich, standards-adherent metadata to describe their experimental results. Despite the availability of sophisticated tools to assist in the process of data annotation, investigators generally seem to prefer to use spreadsheets when supplying metadata, despite the limitations of spreadsheets in ensuring metadata consistency and compliance with formal specifications. In this paper, we describe an end-to-end approach that supports spreadsheet-based entry of metadata, while ensuring rigorous adherence to community-based metadata standards and providing quality control. Our methods employ several key components, including customizable templates that represent metadata standards and that can inform the spreadsheets that investigators use to author metadata, controlled terminologies and ontologies for defining metadata values that can be accessed directly from a spreadsheet, and an interactive Web-based tool that allows users to rapidly identify and fix errors in their spreadsheet-based metadata. We demonstrate how this approach is being deployed in a biomedical consortium known as HuBMAP to define and collect metadata about a wide range of biological assays.
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.