What Have Data Standards Ever Done for Us?

S E Orchard

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Enabling Next-Generation Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics: Standards, Proteoform Resolution, and FAIR, Reproducible, and Quantitative Analysis.Proteomes · 2026
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.

S E OrchardEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambs, UK. Electronic address: orchard@ebi.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Human Proteome Organization Proteomics Standards Initiative has been successfully developing guidelines, data formats, and controlled vocabularies for both the field of molecular interaction and that of mass spectrometry for more than 20 years. This review explores some of the ways that the proteomics community has benefitted from the development of community standards and takes a look at some of the tools and resources that have been improved or developed as a result of the work of the Human Proteome Organization-Proteomics Standards Initiative.

Indexed as

ProteomeProteomicsDatabases, ProteinHumansMass SpectrometryProteomedata standardsHuman Proteome Organizationmolecular interactionsprotein complexesprotein–protein interactionsProteomics Standards Initiative

Identifiers

PMID40024375

DOI10.1016/j.mcpro.2025.100933

PMCPMC12289529

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.