ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
Usage and impact of global biodata resources.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Biodata resources constitute a critical, large-scale, and globally distributed infrastructure underpinning life science research, yet their organic growth has hindered efforts to quantify key indicators needed to justify sustainable support, including usage, impact, and interdependencies. Here, we present an updated Global Biodata Coalition inventory alongside a Total Resource Usage (TRU) dataset that integrates this inventory with two complementary literature-derived sources: data citations and informal resource name mentions extracted from full-text articles using a fine-tuned machine learning model. A unified database schema enables cross-resource comparisons, dependency network analyses, and evaluation of resource name distinctiveness. Results: The combined dataset captures 11.5 million formal and informal references, revealing that most resources are acknowledged informally within article text. Network analysis indicates a densely interconnected ecosystem in which Global Core Biodata Resources function as key providers and integrators, underscoring their foundational role. While full resource names are generally distinctive, widespread use of acronyms limits detectability through text mining. Together, these findings provide robust empirical evidence of a highly utilized and interconnected biodata infrastructure, highlight limitations of single-metric assessments, and underscore the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks and more consistent data citation practices to support informed decision-making and long-term sustainability. Availability and implementation: The database and analytical code described here are available on https://github.com/globalbiodata.
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.