ReviewAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Lessons learned: Recommendations for reproducible paleogenomic data analyses.
Review in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paleogenomics is an increasingly data-rich research discipline that has become hugely influential in our understanding of the population history of humans and many other species. Given its reliance on destructive sampling to extract ancient DNA (aDNA) from skeletal remains and other organic sources, minimum reporting standards are crucial to inform the review process, improve transparency and reproducibility, increase the usability of research findings, and maximize the value gained from finite and unique samples. Additionally, paleogenomics researchers routinely face choices that can meaningfully impact results and influence conclusions, including decisions regarding sample usage and parameter options for data processing and analyses. From our collective experience as a paleogenomics research group extensively interacting with other researchers in the field, we identified critical information for key analytical areas required for reproducible research. Our recommendations are compatible with findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) and collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) frameworks for data management and include the use of standardized data formats, amendments to standard metadata formats, and the provision of a reporting checklist detailing sample preparation and analytical workflows. Developing detailed documentation and clear reporting of analytical workflows will ensure that transparent, robust, and reproducible conclusions are routinely achieved to warrant confidence in paleogenomics research outcomes.
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.