ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2026
Using user-centered design to better understand challenges faced during genetic analyses by novice genomic researchers.
Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lack of user-centered design principles in the current landscape of commonly-used bioinformatics software tools poses challenges for novice genomics researchers (NGRs) entering the modern genomics ecosystem. Comparing the usability of one analysis software to that of another is a non-trivial task and requires evaluation criteria that incorporates perspectives from both existing literature and a diverse, underrepresented user base of NGRs. To better characterize these barriers, we utilized a two-pronged approach consisting of a retrospective literature review of existing bioinformatics tools and prospective semi-structured interviews of the needs of NGRs. From both knowledge sources, the key findings that resulted in poor adoption and sustained use of most bioinformatics tools included: poor documentation, lack of readily-accessible informational content, challenges with installation and dependency coordination, and inconsistent error messages/progress indicators. Combining the results from the literature review and the insights gained by interviewing the NGRs, an evaluation rubric was created that can be utilized to grade existing and future bioinformatics tools. This rubric acts as a summary of key components needed for software tools to cater to the diverse needs of both NGRs and experienced users. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of genomics research, it becomes increasingly important to critically evaluate existing tools and develop new ones that will help build a strong foundation for future exploration.
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.