ReviewPloS one2023
Seeing the unseen: Comparison study of representation approaches for biochemical processes in education.
Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding chemical reactions through multimedia resolution data artistic educational tool (MRDAET).Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Interactive 3D Objects Enhance Scientific Communication of Structural Data.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2025Review
- CellVis2: a conference on visualizing the molecular cell.Trends in biochemical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The representations of biochemical processes must balance visual portrayals with descriptive content to be an effective learning tool. To determine what type of representation is the most suitable for education, we designed five different representations of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthesis and examined how they are perceived. Our representations consisted of an overview of the process in a detailed and abstract illustrative format, continuous video formats with and without narration, and a combined illustrative overview with dynamic components. The five representations were evaluated by non-experts who were randomly assigned one of them and experts who viewed and compared all five representations. Subsequently, we conducted a focus group on the outcomes of these evaluations, which gave insight into possible explanations of our results, where the non-experts preferred the detailed static representation and found the narrated video least helpful, in contradiction to the experts who favored the narrated video the most.
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.