ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Verification and reproducible curation of the BioModels repository.
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.
- Antimony 3: Extending human-readable model definitions for SBML Level 3 Core and Packages.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The BioModels Repository contains over 1000 manually curated mechanistic models from published literature, most often encoded in the Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML). This community-based standard formally specifies each model, but does not describe the computational experimental conditions to run a simulation and collect data. Therefore, it can be challenging to reproduce any figure or result from a publication with an SBML model alone. The Simulation Experiment Description Markup Language (SED-ML) provides a solution: a standard way to specify exactly how to run an experiment corresponding to a specific figure or result. BioModels was established years before SED-ML, and both systems evolved over time, both in content and acceptance. Hence, only about half of the entries in BioModels contained SED-ML files, and these files reflected the version of SED-ML that was available at the time. Additionally, almost all of these SED-ML files had at least one minor mistake that made them impossible to run. To make these models and their results more reproducible, we report here on our work updating, correcting and generating new SED-ML files for 1055 curated mechanistic models in BioModels. In addition, because SED-ML is implementation-independent, it can be used for verification, demonstrating that results hold across multiple simulation engines. We tested, corrected, and improved over 450 existing SED-ML files in the BioModels database, and created basic files for the rest of the entries. Then, we used a wrapper architecture for interpreting SED-ML, and report verification results across five different ODE-based biosimulation engines, after further improving the models, the wrappers, and the engines themselves. Our work with SED-ML and the BioModels collection aims to improve the utility of these models by making them more reproducible and credible. Improved reproducibility means these models are now even more fit for re-use, such as in new investigations and as components of multiscale models.
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.