Dataset Information

Indicators for the use of robotic labs in basic biomedical research: a literature analysis.

ABSTRACT: Robotic labs, in which experiments are carried out entirely by robots, have the potential to provide a reproducible and transparent foundation for performing basic biomedical laboratory experiments. In this article, we investigate whether these labs could be applicable in current experimental practice. We do this by text mining 1,628 papers for occurrences of methods that are supported by commercial robotic labs. Using two different concept recognition tools, we find that 86%-89% of the papers have at least one of these methods. This and our other results provide indications that robotic labs can serve as the foundation for performing many lab-based experiments.

SUBMITTER: Groth P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5681851 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Indicators for the use of robotic labs in basic biomedical research: a literature analysis.

Groth Paul P Cox Jessica J

PeerJ 20171108

Robotic labs, in which experiments are carried out entirely by robots, have the potential to provide a reproducible and transparent foundation for performing basic biomedical laboratory experiments. In this article, we investigate whether these labs could be applicable in current experimental practice. We do this by text mining 1,628 papers for occurrences of methods that are supported by commercial robotic labs. Using two different concept recognition tools, we find that 86%-89% of the papers h ...[more]

PMID: 29134146

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.MethodologyWe have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.FindingsWe included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.DiscussionThe majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.

Project description:BackgroundThe FAIR principles recommend the use of controlled vocabularies, such as ontologies, to define data and metadata concepts. Ontologies are currently modelled following different approaches, sometimes describing conflicting definitions of the same concepts, which can affect interoperability. To cope with that, prior literature suggests organising ontologies in levels, where domain specific (low-level) ontologies are grounded in domain independent high-level ontologies (i.e., foundational ontologies). In this level-based organisation, foundational ontologies work as translators of intended meaning, thus improving interoperability. Despite their considerable acceptance in biomedical research, there are very few studies testing foundational ontologies. This paper describes a systematic literature mapping that was conducted to understand how foundational ontologies are used in biomedical research and to find empirical evidence supporting their claimed (dis)advantages.ResultsFrom a set of 79 selected papers, we identified that foundational ontologies are used for several purposes: ontology construction, repair, mapping, and ontology-based data analysis. Foundational ontologies are claimed to improve interoperability, enhance reasoning, speed up ontology development and facilitate maintainability. The complexity of using foundational ontologies is the most commonly cited downside. Despite being used for several purposes, there were hardly any experiments (1 paper) testing the claims for or against the use of foundational ontologies. In the subset of 49 papers that describe the development of an ontology, it was observed a low adherence to ontology construction (16 papers) and ontology evaluation formal methods (4 papers).ConclusionOur findings have two main implications. First, the lack of empirical evidence about the use of foundational ontologies indicates a need for evaluating the use of such artefacts in biomedical research. Second, the low adherence to formal methods illustrates how the field could benefit from a more systematic approach when dealing with the development and evaluation of ontologies. The understanding of how foundational ontologies are used in the biomedical field can drive future research towards the improvement of ontologies and, consequently, data FAIRness. The adoption of formal methods can impact the quality and sustainability of ontologies, and reusing these methods from other fields is encouraged.

Dataset Information

Indicators for the use of robotic labs in basic biomedical research: a literature analysis.

Publications

Indicators for the use of robotic labs in basic biomedical research: a literature analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets