Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40926966›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2025

Open-source models for development of data and metadata standards.

Ariel Rokem, Vani Mandava, Nicoleta Cristea, Anshul Tambay, Kristofer Bouchard, Carolina Berys-Gonzalez, Andy Connolly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 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

7 authors.

Ariel RokemUniversity of Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle, WA, USA.
Vani MandavaUniversity of Washington, eScience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nicoleta CristeaUniversity of Washington, eScience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Anshul TambayUniversity of Washington, eScience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kristofer BouchardLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Biological Systems & Engineering Division, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Carolina Berys-GonzalezUniversity of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, CA, USA.
Andy ConnollyUniversity of Washington, Department of Astronomy, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning and artificial intelligence promise to accelerate research and understanding across many scientific disciplines. Harnessing the power of these techniques requires aggregating scientific data. In tandem, the importance of open data for reproducibility and scientific transparency is gaining recognition, and data are increasingly available through digital repositories. Leveraging efforts from disparate data collection sources, however, requires interoperable and adaptable standards for data description and storage. Through the synthesis of experiences in astronomy, high-energy physics, earth science, and neuroscience, we contend that the open-source software (OSS) model provides significant benefits for standard creation and adaptation. We highlight resultant issues, such as balancing flexibility vs. stability and utilizing new computing paradigms and technologies, that must be considered from both the user and developer perspectives to ensure pathways for recognition and sustainability. We recommend supporting and recognizing the development and maintenance of OSS data standards and software consistent with widely adopted scientific tools.

Indexed as

datametadataopen-source softwarestandards

Identifiers

PMID40926966
PMCPMC12416081

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.