Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

The SoftWipe tool and benchmark for assessing coding standards adherence of scientific software.

ABSTRACT: Scientific software from all areas of scientific research is pivotal to obtaining novel insights. Yet the coding standards adherence of scientific software is rarely assessed, even though it might lead to incorrect scientific results in the worst case. Therefore, we have developed an open source tool and benchmark called SoftWipe, that provides a relative software coding standards adherence ranking of 48 computational tools from diverse research areas. SoftWipe can be used in the review process of software papers and to inform the scientific software selection process.

SUBMITTER: Zapletal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8113446 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

The SoftWipe tool and benchmark for assessing coding standards adherence of scientific software.

Zapletal Adrian A Höhler Dimitri D Sinz Carsten C Stamatakis Alexandros A

Scientific reports 20210511 1

Scientific software from all areas of scientific research is pivotal to obtaining novel insights. Yet the coding standards adherence of scientific software is rarely assessed, even though it might lead to incorrect scientific results in the worst case. Therefore, we have developed an open source tool and benchmark called SoftWipe, that provides a relative software coding standards adherence ranking of 48 computational tools from diverse research areas. SoftWipe can be used in the review process ...[more]

PMID: 33976324

Similar Datasets

Benchmark Submission Tool Tests

Project description:This study has been created to benchmark the various submission tools.

| PRJEB61106 | ENA

Harnessing scientific literature reports for pharmacovigilance. Prototype software analytical tool development and usability testing.

Project description:ObjectivesWe seek to develop a prototype software analytical tool to augment FDA regulatory reviewers' capacity to harness scientific literature reports in PubMed/MEDLINE for pharmacovigilance and adverse drug event (ADE) safety signal detection. We also aim to gather feedback through usability testing to assess design, performance, and user satisfaction with the tool.MethodsA prototype, open source, web-based, software analytical tool generated statistical disproportionality data mining signal scores and dynamic visual analytics for ADE safety signal detection and management. We leveraged Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) indexing terms assigned to published citations in PubMed/MEDLINE to generate candidate drug-adverse event pairs for quantitative data mining. Six FDA regulatory reviewers participated in usability testing by employing the tool as part of their ongoing real-life pharmacovigilance activities to provide subjective feedback on its practical impact, added value, and fitness for use.ResultsAll usability test participants cited the tool's ease of learning, ease of use, and generation of quantitative ADE safety signals, some of which corresponded to known established adverse drug reactions. Potential concerns included the comparability of the tool's automated literature search relative to a manual 'all fields' PubMed search, missing drugs and adverse event terms, interpretation of signal scores, and integration with existing computer-based analytical tools.ConclusionsUsability testing demonstrated that this novel tool can automate the detection of ADE safety signals from published literature reports. Various mitigation strategies are described to foster improvements in design, productivity, and end user satisfaction.

| S-EPMC5373771 | biostudies-literature

GOAL: a software tool for assessing biological significance of genes groups.

Project description:BackgroundModern high throughput experimental techniques such as DNA microarrays often result in large lists of genes. Computational biology tools such as clustering are then used to group together genes based on their similarity in expression profiles. Genes in each group are probably functionally related. The functional relevance among the genes in each group is usually characterized by utilizing available biological knowledge in public databases such as Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG pathways, association between a transcription factor (TF) and its target genes, and/or gene networks.ResultsWe developedGoalGene Ontology AnaLyzer, a software tool specifically designed for the functional evaluation of gene groups. GOAL implements and supports efficient and statistically rigorous functional interpretations of gene groups through its integration with available GO, TF-gene association data, and association with KEGG pathways. In order to facilitate more specific functional characterization of a gene group, we implement three GO-tree search strategies rather than one as in most existing GO analysis tools. Furthermore, GOAL offers flexibility in deployment. It can be used as a standalone tool, a plug-in to other computational biology tools, or a web server application.ConclusionWe developed a functional evaluation software tool, GOAL, to perform functional characterization of a gene group. GOAL offers three GO-tree search strategies and combines its strength in function integration, portability and visualization, and its flexibility in deployment. Furthermore, GOAL can be used to evaluate and compare gene groups as the output from computational biology tools such as clustering algorithms.

| S-EPMC2873542 | biostudies-literature

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences.

Project description:Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10% of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.

| S-EPMC4375091 | biostudies-literature

Coding Variation and Adherence to Methodological Standards in Cardiac Research Using the National Inpatient Sample.

Project description:Background: Code selection is crucial to the accuracy and reproducibility of studies using administrative data, however a comprehensive assessment of coding trends for major cardiac diagnoses and procedures is lacking. We aimed to evaluate trends in administrative code utilization for major cardiac diagnoses and procedures, and adherence to required methodological practices in cardiac research using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Methods: In this observational study of 445 articles, ICD-9-CM codes corresponding to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, atrial fibrillation, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting were collected and analyzed. The NIS was used to compare the number of hospitalizations between the most frequently encountered AMI case definitions. Key elements were abstracted from each article to evaluate adherence to required methodological practices. Results: Variation in code utilization was observed for each diagnosis and procedure assessed, and the number of unique case definitions published per year increased throughout the study period (P < 0.001), driven largely by the significant increase in articles per year (P < 0.001). Off-target codes were observed in 39 (8.8%) studies. Upon reintroduction into the NIS for 2008-2012, the most commonly encountered case definitions for AMI were found to yield significantly different estimates of AMI hospitalizations and hospitalization trends over time. Three hundred and ninety-nine articles (84%) did not adhere to one or more required research practices. Overall adherence was superior for publications in higher-impact journals (P = 0.002). Conclusions: Substantial variation in code selection exists for major cardiac diagnoses and procedures, and non-adherence to methodological standards is widespread. These data have important implications for the accuracy and generalizability of analyses using the NIS.

| S-EPMC8592936 | biostudies-literature

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

Project description:The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, focus groups, and interviews, was distributed in November 2010 to U.S. faculty from 50 graduate programs for each of four different disciplines: microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. The survey addressed practices and perceived standards, as well as perceptions about teaching and learning. Over 1,300 responses (response rate of 21 %) yielded statistically significant differences in responses to nearly all questions. However the magnitude of these differences was typically small, leaving little reason to argue for community consensus on standards. For nearly all questions asked, the clear finding was that there was nothing approaching consensus. These results may be useful not so much to teach what the standards are, but to increase student awareness of the diversity of those standards in reported practice.

| S-EPMC4057364 | biostudies-literature

SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4550299 | biostudies-literature

bertha: Project skeleton for scientific software.

Project description:Science depends heavily on reliable and easy-to-use software packages, such as mathematical libraries or data analysis tools. Developing such packages requires a lot of effort, which is too often avoided due to the lack of funding or recognition. In order to reduce the efforts required to create sustainable software packages, we present a project skeleton that ensures the best software engineering practices from the start of a project, or serves as reference for existing projects.

| S-EPMC7089539 | biostudies-literature

Rampant software errors may undermine scientific results.

Project description:The opportunities for both subtle and profound errors in software and data management are boundless, yet they remain surprisingly underappreciated. Here I estimate that any reported scientific result could very well be wrong if data have passed through a computer, and that these errors may remain largely undetected. It is therefore necessary to greatly expand our efforts to validate scientific software and computed results.

| S-EPMC4629271 | biostudies-literature

Dissemination of scientific software with Galaxy ToolShed.

Project description:The proliferation of web-based integrative analysis frameworks has enabled users to perform complex analyses directly through the web. Unfortunately, it also revoked the freedom to easily select the most appropriate tools. To address this, we have developed Galaxy ToolShed.

| S-EPMC4038738 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data