ArticleStem cell reports2025
How FAIR is metadata for human pluripotent stem cells?
Article in Stem cell reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diversity-in-a-dish: A practical framework for hiPSC model development.Stem cell reports · 2026Review
- Improving rigor and reproducibility through implementation of the ISSCR standards for human stem cell use in research.Stem cell reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid and global expansion of stem cell research over the last two decades necessitates coordinated and effective management of information describing stem cell lines and accompanying data resources. Here, we evaluate the maturity of the field by applying FAIR data principles-findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable-to assess the quality of information describing human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) in dedicated data infrastructure. We identified a lack of coordination across different jurisdictions that prevents effective information sharing, such as the absence of persistent digital identifiers, inconsistent data standards, and restrictive sharing policies. Using Australia, the United States, Japan, and Europe as case studies, we underscore the need for national infrastructure to support comprehensive cell line cataloging. This is the first systematic evaluation of FAIR principles in the field and indicates that improving metadata standardization and cross-platform coordination will enhance data reuse and strengthen the value of local resources.
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.