Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42333906›Full record

ReviewJournal of microscopy2026

The reproducibility gap in graph neural network workflows for cell dynamics: A checklist-driven case study.

Martin Schätz, Ko Sugawara

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of microscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Martin SchätzDepartment of Mathematics Informatics and Cybernetics, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0931-4017
Ko SugawaraLaboratory for Developmental Dynamics, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research, Kobe, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1392-9340

Funding

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative 2023-321238Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology JPMJCR1926Czech BioImaging LM2023050e-INFRA CZ 90254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of a Global BioImage Analysts' Society (GloBIAS) initiative, we evaluated the reproducibility of a Graph Neural Network (GNN) study on cell dynamics using structured, community-developed checklists from the Quality Assessment and Reproducibility for Instruments and Images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative. Notably, these checklists were published after the 2022 Target Paper, meaning our assessment is necessarily retrospective. Our assessment revealed a gap between recent reporting standards and practical execution. Reproduction attempts across multiple environments confirmed deficiencies, including the absence of explicit image metadata (pixel size and timestamps), which limits quantitative interpretation. Furthermore, the absence of a software container, which was typical for the time of publication and the incomplete dependency list, necessitated complex manual environment configuration, increasing the barrier to entry. This experience highlights the contrast between the reproducibility expectations at the time and newer standards achieved by minimal compliance and true functional access. We conclude by presenting a detailed discussion of the broader implications for the quantitative biology community and propose actionable recommendations including robust environment containerisation and standardised data deposition to ensure complex computational workflows become scientifically sound and reusable resources. This retrospective case study evaluates a legacy computational paper against modern reproducibility framework, not to critique past non-compliance, but to extract actionable lessons for future research standards.

Indexed as

ChecklistGraph Neural NetworksImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyWorkflowHumansReproducibility of ResultsSoftwarebioimage analysis standardscomputational reproducibilitygraph neural networksquantitative microscopy

Identifiers

PMID42333906
PMCPMC13686540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.