ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2026
Large-scale manual curation and harmonization of metadata from metagenomic and cancer genomic repositories: challenges and solutions.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public omics repositories contain vast amounts of valuable data, but their metadata suffers from extreme heterogeneity, unstandardized terminologies, and quality issues that severely limit data reusability and cross-study integration. While prospective metadata standards exist, the majority of published omics data remain in non-standardized formats requiring retrospective harmonization. We performed comprehensive manual curation and harmonization of metadata, such as participant characteristics and study conditions, from 212 027 omics samples across 468 studies in two repositories: curatedMetagenomicData (93 studies, 22 588 samples) and cBioPortal (375 studies, 189 438 samples). Through systematic ontology mapping, we consolidated redundant, dispersed information into far fewer harmonized columns, reduced unique values, and increased the completeness of major attributes. This curation process revealed common metadata quality issues, including typos, inconsistent terminologies, misplaced values, conflicting annotations, and inappropriately merged information across attributes. We document the challenges, decisions, and solutions during this large-scale metadata harmonization. The harmonized metadata, accessible through the OmicsMLRepoR Bioconductor package, enables repository-wide queries and cross-study analyses previously challenging with heterogeneous metadata. Our experience provides practical guidance for similar curation efforts and demonstrates the value of investing in retrospective metadata improvement for existing public omics resources.
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.