ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022
A collaborative semantic-based provenance management platform for reproducibility.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproducibility and replicability in research: What 452 professors think in Universities across the USA and India.PloS one · 2025Article
- Provenance Information for Biomedical Data and Workflows: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Facilitating the Sharing of Electrophysiology Data Analysis Results Through In-Depth Provenance Capture.eNeuro · 2024Article
- AI-SPedia: a novel ontology to evaluate the impact of research in the field of artificial intelligence.PeerJ. Computer science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific data management plays a key role in the reproducibility of scientific results. To reproduce results, not only the results but also the data and steps of scientific experiments must be made findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. Tracking, managing, describing, and visualizing provenance helps in the understandability, reproducibility, and reuse of experiments for the scientific community. Current systems lack a link between the data, steps, and results from the computational and non-computational processes of an experiment. Such a link, however, is vital for the reproducibility of results. We present a novel solution for the end-to-end provenance management of scientific experiments. We provide a framework, CAESAR (CollAborative Environment for Scientific Analysis with Reproducibility), which allows scientists to capture, manage, query and visualize the complete path of a scientific experiment consisting of computational and non-computational data and steps in an interoperable way. CAESAR integrates the REPRODUCE-ME provenance model, extended from existing semantic web standards, to represent the whole picture of an experiment describing the path it took from its design to its result. ProvBook, an extension for Jupyter Notebooks, is developed and integrated into CAESAR to support computational reproducibility. We have applied and evaluated our contributions to a set of scientific experiments in microscopy research projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.