ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Modular, focused data science education improves biomedical learners' abilities: A study of the Data and Analytics for Research Training (DART) program.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modular, focused data science education improves biomedical learners' abilities: A study of the Data and Analytics for Research Training (DART) program.PLoS computational 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing availability of big data and adoption of sophisticated computational techniques in biomedical research has exciting implications for our scientific understanding of human health. However, researchers report struggling to find data science education that meets their needs, despite the fact that many training programs and online resources exist. There is a lack of evidence on the strengths and weaknesses of various training options, making selecting an educational path daunting. We created a new data science training program focused on rigorous, reproducible methods for biomedical research, making use of tightly scoped modular content that can be flexibly arranged to provide a curriculum tailored to a researcher's specific needs and skill level. Moreover, we ran a study testing the program's effectiveness, providing not only another option for data science training but also a model for collecting and sharing relevant data on data science education programs. We ran two waves of research participants, adjusting our materials in between to improve both the training program and our research design. For both waves, we pre-registered hypotheses that learners' self-reported data science ability and level of agreement with important tenets of open science would increase over the course of the program. Indeed, learners showed significant improvement in data science ability (Wave 1: t(47) = 10.18, p < .001, Wave 2: t(238) = 17.12, p < .001) and greater agreement with open science values (Wave 1: t(47) = 3.56, p < .001, Wave 2: t(238) = 7.95, p < .001). Follow up analyses underscore the robustness of improvement in data science ability. The improvement in open science values was more moderate and was significant only in some of our pre-registered hypothesis tests, likely due to a ceiling effect as most learners reported high agreement with open science values at pretest.
Indexed as
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.