ReviewJournal of microscopy2026
The reproducibility gap in graph neural network workflows for cell dynamics: A checklist-driven case study.
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.
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.
- The reproducibility gap in graph neural network workflows for cell dynamics: A checklist-driven case study.Journal of microscopy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.