BioHackathon 2015: Semantics of data for life sciences and reproducible research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vos RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7141167 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
BioHackathon 2015: Semantics of data for life sciences and reproducible research.
Vos Rutger A RA Katayama Toshiaki T Mishima Hiroyuki H Kawano Shin S Kawashima Shuichi S Kim Jin-Dong JD Moriya Yuki Y Tokimatsu Toshiaki T Yamaguchi Atsuko A Yamamoto Yasunori Y Wu Hongyan H Amstutz Peter P Antezana Erick E Aoki Nobuyuki P NP Arakawa Kazuharu K Bolleman Jerven T JT Bolton Evan E Bonnal Raoul J P RJP Bono Hidemasa H Burger Kees K Chiba Hirokazu H Cohen Kevin B KB Deutsch Eric W EW Fernández-Breis Jesualdo T JT Fu Gang G Fujisawa Takatomo T Fukushima Atsushi A García Alexander A Goto Naohisa N Groza Tudor T Hercus Colin C Hoehndorf Robert R Itaya Kotone K Juty Nick N Kawashima Takeshi T Kim Jee-Hyub JH Kinjo Akira R AR Kotera Masaaki M Kozaki Kouji K Kumagai Sadahiro S Kushida Tatsuya T Lütteke Thomas T Matsubara Masaaki M Miyamoto Joe J Mohsen Attayeb A Mori Hiroshi H Naito Yuki Y Nakazato Takeru T Nguyen-Xuan Jeremy J Nishida Kozo K Nishida Naoki N Nishide Hiroyo H Ogishima Soichi S Ohta Tazro T Okuda Shujiro S Paten Benedict B Perret Jean-Luc JL Prathipati Philip P Prins Pjotr P Queralt-Rosinach Núria N Shinmachi Daisuke D Suzuki Shinya S Tabata Tsuyosi T Takatsuki Terue T Taylor Kieron K Thompson Mark M Uchiyama Ikuo I Vieira Bruno B Wei Chih-Hsuan CH Wilkinson Mark M Yamada Issaku I Yamanaka Ryota R Yoshitake Kazutoshi K Yoshizawa Akiyasu C AC Dumontier Michel M Kosaki Kenjiro K Takagi Toshihisa T
F1000Research 20200224
We report on the activities of the 2015 edition of the BioHackathon, an annual event that brings together researchers and developers from around the world to develop tools and technologies that promote the reusability of biological data. We discuss issues surrounding the representation, publication, integration, mining and reuse of biological data and metadata across a wide range of biomedical data types of relevance for the life sciences, including chemistry, genotypes and phenotypes, orthology ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.
| S-EPMC6245499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Throughout history, the life sciences have been revolutionised by technological advances; in our era this is manifested by advances in instrumentation for data generation, and consequently researchers now routinely handle large amounts of heterogeneous data in digital formats. The simultaneous transitions towards biology as a data science and towards a 'life cycle' view of research data pose new challenges. Researchers face a bewildering landscape of data management requirements, recommendations and regulations, without necessarily being able to access data management training or possessing a clear understanding of practical approaches that can assist in data management in their particular research domain. Here we provide an overview of best practice data life cycle approaches for researchers in the life sciences/bioinformatics space with a particular focus on 'omics' datasets and computer-based data processing and analysis. We discuss the different stages of the data life cycle and provide practical suggestions for useful tools and resources to improve data management practices.
| S-EPMC6069748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) have the potential to benefit undergraduates and longer UREs have been shown to lead to greater benefits for students. However, no studies have examined what causes students to stay in or consider leaving their UREs. In this study, we examined what factors cause students to stay in their UREs, what factors cause students to consider leaving their UREs, and what factors cause students to leave their UREs. We sampled from 25 research-intensive (R1) public universities across the United States and surveyed 768 life sciences undergraduates who were currently participating in or had previously participated in a URE. Students answered closed-ended and open-ended questions about factors that they perceived influenced their persistence in UREs. We used logistic regression to explore to what extent student demographics predicted what factors influenced students to stay in or consider leaving their UREs. We applied open-coding methods to probe the student-reported reasons why students chose to stay in and leave their UREs. Fifty percent of survey respondents considered leaving their URE, and 53.1% of those students actually left their URE. Students who reported having a positive lab environment and students who indicated enjoying their everyday research tasks were more likely to not consider leaving their UREs. In contrast, students who reported a negative lab environment or that they were not gaining important knowledge or skills were more likely to leave their UREs. Further, we identified that gender, race/ethnicity, college generation status, and GPA predicted which factors influenced students' decisions to persist in their UREs. This research provides important insight into how research mentors can create UREs that undergraduates are willing and able to participate in for as long as possible.
| S-EPMC6693735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers. In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields. While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version. The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals. To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database. A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.01% of all content posted on these servers. Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due-at least in part-to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable. Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity. It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.
| S-EPMC9060331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Science is changing: the volume and complexity of data are increasing, the number of studies is growing and the goal of achieving reproducible results requires new solutions for scientific data management. In the field of neuroscience, the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI-Neuro) initiative aims to develop sustainable solutions for research data management (RDM). To obtain an understanding of the present RDM situation in the neuroscience community, NFDI-Neuro conducted a comprehensive survey among the neuroscience community. Here, we report and analyze the results of the survey. We focused the survey and our analysis on current needs, challenges, and opinions about RDM. The German neuroscience community perceives barriers with respect to RDM and data sharing mainly linked to (1) lack of data and metadata standards, (2) lack of community adopted provenance tracking methods, (3) lack of secure and privacy preserving research infrastructure for sensitive data, (4) lack of RDM literacy, and (5) lack of resources (time, personnel, money) for proper RDM. However, an overwhelming majority of community members (91%) indicated that they would be willing to share their data with other researchers and are interested to increase their RDM skills. Taking advantage of this willingness and overcoming the existing barriers requires the systematic development of standards, tools, and infrastructure, the provision of training, education, and support, as well as additional resources for RDM to the research community and a constant dialogue with relevant stakeholders including policy makers to leverage of a culture change through adapted incentivization and regulation.
| S-EPMC9933933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A major challenge in data-driven biomedical research lies in the collection and representation of data provenance information to ensure that findings are reproducibile. In order to communicate and reproduce multi-step analysis workflows executed on datasets that contain data for dozens or hundreds of samples, it is crucial to be able to visualize the provenance graph at different levels of aggregation. Most existing approaches are based on node-link diagrams, which do not scale to the complexity of typical data provenance graphs. In our proposed approach, we reduce the complexity of the graph using hierarchical and motif-based aggregation. Based on user action and graph attributes, a modular degree-of-interest (DoI) function is applied to expand parts of the graph that are relevant to the user. This interest-driven adaptive approach to provenance visualization allows users to review and communicate complex multi-step analyses, which can be based on hundreds of files that are processed by numerous workflows. We have integrated our approach into an analysis platform that captures extensive data provenance information, and demonstrate its effectiveness by means of a biomedical usage scenario.
| S-EPMC6027754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reproducibility is essential to open science, as there is limited relevance for findings that can not be reproduced by independent research groups, regardless of its validity. It is therefore crucial for scientists to describe their experiments in sufficient detail so they can be reproduced, scrutinized, challenged, and built upon. However, the intrinsic complexity and continuous growth of biomedical data makes it increasingly difficult to process, analyze, and share with the community in a FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) manner. To overcome these issues, we created a cloud-based platform called ORCESTRA ( orcestra.ca ), which provides a flexible framework for the reproducible processing of multimodal biomedical data. It enables processing of clinical, genomic and perturbation profiles of cancer samples through automated processing pipelines that are user-customizable. ORCESTRA creates integrated and fully documented data objects with persistent identifiers (DOI) and manages multiple dataset versions, which can be shared for future studies.
| S-EPMC8490371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeQuality of life (QOL) is an important concept in the field of health and medicine. QOL is a complex concept that is interpreted and defined differently within and between disciplines, including the fields of health and medicine. The aims of this study were to systematically review the literature on QOL in medicine and health research and to describe the country of origin, target groups, instruments, design, and conceptual issues.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify research studies on QOL and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The databases Scopus, which includes Embase and MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published during one random week in November 2016. The ten predefined criteria of Gill and Feinstein were used to evaluate the conceptual and methodological rigor.ResultsQOL research is international and involves a variety of target groups, research designs, and QOL measures. According to the criteria of Gill and Feinstein, the results show that only 13% provided a definition of QOL, 6% distinguished QOL from HRQOL. The most frequently fulfilled criteria were: (i) stating the domains of QOL to be measured; (ii) giving a reason for choosing the instruments used; and (iii) aggregating the results from multiple items.ConclusionQOL is an important endpoint in medical and health research, and QOL research involves a variety of patient groups and different research designs. Based on the current evaluation of the methodological and conceptual clarity of QOL research, we conclude that the majority QOL studies in health and medicine have conceptual and methodological challenges.
| S-EPMC6761255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasures to ensure research integrity have been widely discussed due to the social, economic and scientific impact of research integrity. In the past few years, financial support for health research in emerging countries has steadily increased, resulting in a growing number of scientific publications. These achievements, however, have been accompanied by a rise in retracted publications followed by concerns about the quality and reliability of such publications.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to investigate the profile of medical and life sciences research retractions from authors affiliated with Brazilian academic institutions. The chronological trend between publication and retraction date, reasons for the retraction, citation of the article after the retraction, study design, and the number of retracted publications by author and affiliation were assessed. Additionally, the quality, availability and accessibility of data regarding retracted papers from the publishers are described.MethodsTwo independent reviewers searched for articles that had been retracted since 2004 via PubMed, Web of Science, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) and Google Scholar databases. Indexed keywords from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (DeCS) in Portuguese, English or Spanish were used. Data were also collected from the Retraction Watch website (www.retractionwatch.com). This study was registered with the PROSPERO systematic review database (CRD42017071647).ResultsA final sample of 65 articles was retrieved from 55 different journals with reported impact factors ranging from 0 to 32.86, with a median value of 4.40 and a mean of 4.69. The types of documents found were erratum (1), retracted articles (3), retracted articles with a retraction notice (5), retraction notices with erratum (3), and retraction notices (45). The assessment of the Retraction Watch website added 8 articles that were not identified by the search strategy using the bibliographic databases. The retracted publications covered a wide range of study designs. Experimental studies (40) and literature reviews (15) accounted for 84.6% of the retracted articles. Within the field of health and life sciences, medical science was the field with the largest number of retractions (34), followed by biological sciences (17). Some articles were retracted for at least two distinct reasons (13). Among the retrieved articles, plagiarism was the main reason for retraction (60%). Missing data were found in 57% of the retraction notices, which was a limitation to this review. In addition, 63% of the articles were cited after their retraction.ConclusionPublications are not retracted solely for research misconduct but also for honest error. Nevertheless, considering authors affiliated with Brazilian institutions, this review concluded that most of the retracted health and life sciences publications were retracted due to research misconduct. Because the number of publications is the most valued indicator of scientific productivity for funding and career progression purposes, a systematic effort from the national research councils, funding agencies, universities and scientific journals is needed to avoid an escalating trend of research misconduct. More investigations are needed to comprehend the underlying factors of research misconduct and its increasing manifestation.
| S-EPMC6464327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Linked Data has gained some attention recently in the life sciences as an effective way to provide and share data. As a part of the Semantic Web, data are linked so that a person or machine can explore the web of data. Resource Description Framework (RDF) is the standard means of implementing Linked Data. In the process of generating RDF data, not only are data simply linked to one another, the links themselves are characterized by ontologies, thereby allowing the types of links to be distinguished. Although there is a high labor cost to define an ontology for data providers, the merit lies in the higher level of interoperability with data analysis and visualization software. This increase in interoperability facilitates the multi-faceted retrieval of data, and the appropriate data can be quickly extracted and visualized. Such retrieval is usually performed using the SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language) query language, which is used to query RDF data stores. For the database provider, such interoperability will surely lead to an increase in the number of users. RESULTS: This manuscript describes the experiences and discussions shared among participants of the week-long BioHackathon 2011 who went through the development of RDF representations of their own data and developed specific RDF and SPARQL use cases. Advice regarding considerations to take when developing RDF representations of their data are provided for bioinformaticians considering making data available and interoperable. CONCLUSIONS: Participants of the BioHackathon 2011 were able to produce RDF representations of their data and gain a better understanding of the requirements for producing such data in a period of just five days. We summarize the work accomplished with the hope that it will be useful for researchers involved in developing laboratory databases or data analysis, and those who are considering such technologies as RDF and Linked Data.
| S-EPMC4429360 | biostudies-literature