ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2026
Assessment of the impact of manual curation in BioCyc.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: BioCyc is an extensive collection of databases of genomic and pathway information for microorganisms and model eukaryotes. These organismal databases integrate diverse biological data by combining computationally inferred information, data imported from other databases, and, for selected organisms, literature-based manual curation. This study investigates the magnitude and significance of annotation changes performed during the curation of 10 prokaryotic genomes to better understand the rate of erroneous annotations and the value of BioCyc curation. Methods: We identified curation changes by finding cases where the annotation of the protein at the start of the curation process differed from its annotation at the end of the process. Results: We found that across a sample of curated databases ( Discussion: These findings demonstrate a substantial improvement in the accuracy of manually curated BioCyc databases compared with automated annotation pipelines. This result is particularly impactful as the rate of downstream propagation of erroneous annotations across biological databases can significantly compromise scientific discovery.
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.