Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40121238›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Quantifying the impact of workshops promoting microbiome data standards and data stewardship.

Julia M Kelliher, Francisca E Rodriguez, Leah Y D Johnson, Simon Roux, Montana Smith, Alicia Clum, Wendi Lynch, Candace Hope Bias, Sarai S Finks, Ishi Keenum and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

21 authors.

Julia M Kelliher *Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA. jkelliher@lanl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4100-9119
Francisca E Rodriguez *Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA. francisca@lanl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5778-0288
Leah Y D JohnsonBioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5896-0344
Simon RouxLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5831-5895
Montana SmithPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8683-0050
Alicia ClumLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5004-3362
Wendi LynchLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-1007-1384
Candace Hope BiasU.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4705-6947
Sarai S FinksDepartment of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7458-4497
Ishi KeenumMichigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5441-4634
E Anders KiledalDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4565-2187
Heng-An LinTexas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1229-0901
Reid LongleyBioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-0263
Ryan McDonaldU.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7735-2563
Thomas M PitotDepartment of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Bioinformatics, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3867-3190
Josué Rodríguez-RamosPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2049-2765
Jiaxian ShenNorthwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4929-8955
Daniel D SprockettDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2620-7555
Joel SwiftKansas Biological Survey & Center for Ecological Research, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7186-3298
Archana YadavLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5056-0741
Emiley A Eloe-FadroshLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA. eaeloefadrosh@lbl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8162-1276

Funding

U.S. Department of Energy The work conducted by the National Microbiome Data Collaborative (https://ror.org/05cwx3318) is supported by the Genomic Science Program in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) under contract numbers DE-AC02-05CH11231 (LBNL), 89233218CNA000001 (LANL), and DE-AC05-76RL01830 (PNNL).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of microbiome research continues to grow at a rapid pace, with multi-omics approaches becoming widely used to interrogate diverse microbiome samples. However, due to lagging awareness and implementation of standards and data stewardship, many datasets are produced that are not comparable, reproducible, or reusable. In 2021, the National Microbiome Data Collaborative launched its Ambassador Program, which utilizes a community-learning model to annually train a cohort of early-career researchers in microbiome data stewardship best practices. These Ambassadors then host workshops and other events to communicate these themes to their respective microbiome research communities. To quantify the impact of this learning model for promoting awareness of and experience with microbiome data, we conducted a survey of workshop participants from events hosted by the 2023 Ambassador cohort. The 2023 cohort of 13 National Microbiome Data Collaborative Ambassadors collectively hosted 21 events, reaching over 550 researchers. The Ambassadors distributed an anonymous post-workshop survey to their event participants to quantify the effectiveness of the training materials, the workshop format, and the thematic content. From the 21 events, survey results were successfully collected for 15 of those events from a total of 122 researchers. Overall, 122 participants working with a range of microbiome types and from a variety of institutions responded to the survey and reported overwhelmingly positive experiences with the workshop content and materials, with 98% of respondents reporting that they gained knowledge from the event. Participants across the events also reported an increase in their post-workshop understanding of metadata standards, principles for microbiome data management and reporting, and the importance of standardization in microbiome data processing. Participants also expressed a willingness to apply what they learned about microbiome data stewardship to their own research. The results of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of hands-on workshops and community-learning for communicating data stewardship best practices to microbiome researchers. The lessons learned and details about the implementation of this cohort-based learning model contained herein are intended to assist other groups in their efforts to create or improve similar learning strategies.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaEducationHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesCohort-based learningCommunity learningFAIR dataMicrobiomeOpen scienceRetrospective methodologyStandardsWorkshop

Identifiers

PMID40121238
PMCPMC11929805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.