ArticleInnovation in aging2026
An assessment of data and code sharing in research funded by the Nathan Shock Centers, 2017-2022: a meta-research study.
Article in Innovation in aging, 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
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Data and code sharing facilitate reproducibility, trust, and efficient reuse of research resources. Growing recognition of their importance among researchers, journals, and funders led the Nathan Shock Centers (NSC) Coordinating Center to propose documenting and supporting data and code sharing in aging research. As a baseline, we characterized data and code sharing practices in NSC-funded research. Research Design and Methods: We surveyed articles citing NSC grants published 2017-2022 indexed in PubMed. In full-text screening ( Results: Of 400 articles included, 50% and 92% had no data or code availability statements, respectively. Data statements indicated availability via repository (30%), supplemental files (26%), inclusion in paper (10%), and on request (14%). For code, 6% indicated availability in repositories, and ≤1% each for other categories. Of those indicating open data or code, materials were located for 63% and 81%, respectively. Discussion and Implications: Availability statements were absent for about half of articles for data and most for code; when open data or code was claimed, materials were located in most, but not all. Future work will evaluate how these practices improve over time as the NSC Coordinating Center's support and journal and funder guidelines evolve.
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.