ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Catalyzing computational biology research at an academic institute through an interest network.
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.
- Ten simple rules for building a collaborative coding culture.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biology has been transformed by the rapid development of computing and the concurrent rise of data-rich approaches such as, omics or high-resolution imaging. However, there is a persistent computational skills gap in the biomedical research workforce. Inherent limitations of classroom teaching and institutional core support highlight the need for accessible ways for researchers to explore developments in computational biology. An analysis of the Scripps Research Genomics Core revealed increases in the total number and diversity of experiments: the share of experiments other than bulk RNA- or DNA-sequencing increased from 34% to 60% within 10 years, requiring more tailored computational analyses. These challenges were tackled by forming a volunteer-led affinity group of approximately 300 academic biomedical researchers interested in computational biology, referred to as the Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (CBB) affinity group. This adaptive group has provided continuing education and networking opportunities through seminars, workshops, and coding sessions while evolving along with the needs of its members. A survey of CBB's impact confirmed the group's events increased the members' exposure to computational biology educational and research events (79% respondents) and networking opportunities (61% respondents). Thus, volunteer-led affinity groups may be a viable complement to traditional institutional resources for enhancing the application of computing in biomedical research.
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.