The five pillars of computational reproducibility: bioinformatics and beyond
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10591307 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) has demonstrated efficacy in computer imaging and other self-contained digital workflows, but has failed to substantially impact routine clinical care. This is no longer because of poor adoption of Electronic Health Records Systems (EHRS), but because ML4H needs an infrastructure for development, deployment and evaluation within the healthcare institution. In this paper, we propose a design pattern called a Clinical Deployment Environment (CDE). We sketch the five pillars of the CDE: (1) real world development supported by live data where ML4H teams can iteratively build and test at the bedside (2) an ML-Ops platform that brings the rigour and standards of continuous deployment to ML4H (3) design and supervision by those with expertise in AI safety (4) the methods of implementation science that enable the algorithmic insights to influence the behaviour of clinicians and patients and (5) continuous evaluation that uses randomisation to avoid bias but in an agile manner. The CDE is intended to answer the same requirements that bio-medicine articulated in establishing the translational medicine domain. It envisions a transition from "real-world" data to "real-world" development.
| S-EPMC9437594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In biomedical research, validating a scientific discovery hinges on the reproducibility of its experimental results. However, in genomics, the definition and implementation of reproducibility remain imprecise. We argue that genomic reproducibility, defined as the ability of bioinformatics tools to maintain consistent results across technical replicates, is essential for advancing scientific knowledge and medical applications. Initially, we examine different interpretations of reproducibility in genomics to clarify terms. Subsequently, we discuss the impact of bioinformatics tools on genomic reproducibility and explore methods for evaluating these tools regarding their effectiveness in ensuring genomic reproducibility. Finally, we recommend best practices to improve genomic reproducibility.
| S-EPMC11312195 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When reporting research findings, scientists document the steps they followed so that others can verify and build upon the research. When those steps have been described in sufficient detail that others can retrace the steps and obtain similar results, the research is said to be reproducible. Computers play a vital role in many research disciplines and present both opportunities and challenges for reproducibility. Computers can be programmed to execute analysis tasks, and those programs can be repeated and shared with others. The deterministic nature of most computer programs means that the same analysis tasks, applied to the same data, will often produce the same outputs. However, in practice, computational findings often cannot be reproduced because of complexities in how software is packaged, installed, and executed-and because of limitations associated with how scientists document analysis steps. Many tools and techniques are available to help overcome these challenges; here we describe seven such strategies. With a broad scientific audience in mind, we describe the strengths and limitations of each approach, as well as the circumstances under which each might be applied. No single strategy is sufficient for every scenario; thus we emphasize that it is often useful to combine approaches.
| S-EPMC4940747 | biostudies-other
Project description:Independent reproducibility is essential to the generation of scientific knowledge. Optimizing experimental protocols to ensure reproducibility is an important aspect of scientific work. Genetic or pharmacological lifespan extensions are generally small compared to the inherent variability in mean lifespan even in isogenic populations housed under identical conditions. This variability makes reproducible detection of small but real effects experimentally challenging. In this study, we aimed to determine the reproducibility of C. elegans lifespan measurements under ideal conditions, in the absence of methodological errors or environmental or genetic background influences. To accomplish this, we generated a parametric model of C. elegans lifespan based on data collected from 5,026 wild-type N2 animals. We use this model to predict how different experimental practices, effect sizes, number of animals, and how different "shapes" of survival curves affect the ability to reproduce real longevity effects. We find that the chances of reproducing real but small effects are exceedingly low and would require substantially more animals than are commonly used. Our results indicate that many lifespan studies are underpowered to detect reported changes and that, as a consequence, stochastic variation alone can account for many failures to reproduce longevity results. As a remedy, we provide power of detection tables that can be used as guidelines to plan experiments with statistical power to reliably detect real changes in lifespan and limit spurious false positive results. These considerations will improve best-practices in designing lifespan experiment to increase reproducibility.
| S-EPMC5492194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study reproducibility is essential to corroborate, build on, and learn from the results of scientific research but is notoriously challenging in bioinformatics, which often involves large data sets and complex analytic workflows involving many different tools. Additionally, many biologists are not trained in how to effectively record their bioinformatics analysis steps to ensure reproducibility, so critical information is often missing. Software tools used in bioinformatics can automate provenance tracking of the results they generate, removing most barriers to bioinformatics reproducibility. Here we present an implementation of that idea, Provenance Replay, a tool for generating new executable code from results generated with the QIIME 2 bioinformatics platform, and discuss considerations for bioinformatics developers who wish to implement similar functionality in their software.
| S-EPMC10703398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Psychological science has thrived thanks to new methods and innovative practices. Journals, including Behavior Research Methods (BRM), continue to support the dissemination and evaluation of research assets including data, software/hardware, statistical code, and databases of stimuli. However, such research assets rarely allow for computational reproducibility, meaning they are difficult to reuse. Therefore, in this preregistered report, we explore how BRM's authors and BRM structures shape the landscape of functional research assets. Our broad research questions concern: (1) How quickly methods and analytical techniques reported in BRM can be used and developed further by other scientists; (2) Whether functionality has improved following changes to BRM journal policy in support of computational reproducibility; (3) Whether we can disentangle such policy changes from changes in reproducibility over time. We randomly sampled equal numbers of papers (N = 204) published in BRM before and after the implementation of policy changes. Pairs of researchers recorded how long it took to ensure assets (data, software/hardware, statistical code, and materials) were fully operational. They also coded the completeness and reusability of the assets. While improvements were observed in all measures, only changes to completeness were altered significantly following the policy changes (d = .37). The effects varied between different types of research assets, with data sets from surveys/experiments showing the largest improvements in completeness and reusability. Perhaps more importantly, changes to policy do appear to have improved the life span of research products by reducing natural decline. We conclude with a discussion of how, in the future, research and policy might better support computational reproducibility within and beyond psychological science.
| S-EPMC11525395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundJupyter notebooks facilitate the bundling of executable code with its documentation and output in one interactive environment, and they represent a popular mechanism to document and share computational workflows, including for research publications. The reproducibility of computational aspects of research is a key component of scientific reproducibility but has not yet been assessed at scale for Jupyter notebooks associated with biomedical publications.ApproachWe address computational reproducibility at 2 levels: (i) using fully automated workflows, we analyzed the computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks associated with publications indexed in the biomedical literature repository PubMed Central. We identified such notebooks by mining the article's full text, trying to locate them on GitHub, and attempting to rerun them in an environment as close to the original as possible. We documented reproduction success and exceptions and explored relationships between notebook reproducibility and variables related to the notebooks or publications. (ii) This study represents a reproducibility attempt in and of itself, using essentially the same methodology twice on PubMed Central over the course of 2 years, during which the corpus of Jupyter notebooks from articles indexed in PubMed Central has grown in a highly dynamic fashion.ResultsOut of 27,271 Jupyter notebooks from 2,660 GitHub repositories associated with 3,467 publications, 22,578 notebooks were written in Python, including 15,817 that had their dependencies declared in standard requirement files and that we attempted to rerun automatically. For 10,388 of these, all declared dependencies could be installed successfully, and we reran them to assess reproducibility. Of these, 1,203 notebooks ran through without any errors, including 879 that produced results identical to those reported in the original notebook and 324 for which our results differed from the originally reported ones. Running the other notebooks resulted in exceptions.ConclusionsWe zoom in on common problems and practices, highlight trends, and discuss potential improvements to Jupyter-related workflows associated with biomedical publications.
| S-EPMC10783158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Computational analysis of RNA secondary structure is a classical field of biosequence analysis, which has recently gained momentum due to the manyfold regulatory functions of RNA that have become apparent. We present five recent computational approaches that address the problems of synoptic folding space analysis, pseudoknot prediction, structure alignment, comparative structure prediction, and miRNA target prediction. All these programs are in current use and are available via the Bielefeld Bioinformatics Server at .
| S-EPMC7125698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To probe the complexity of modern diseases, multidisciplinary approaches are increasingly applied. Typically underpinning such studies are collaborations between wet bench experimentalists and dry lab bioinformaticians. Despite the need, bioinformatics collaborators remain difficult to find. Therefore, we undertook a study to understand the nature of this research, so that we may better understand how to meet the needs of future multidisciplinary projects. To accomplish this, we have performed a retrospective study of data from three years of projects performed by the UTHealth Bioinformatics Service Center. Based on this, we found that the bioinformatics in these collaborative projects are extremely diverse and require a high degree of intellectual engagement, while requiring only a small amount of publishable methods development. Very few of the specific skills, the strength of a service core, could be recycled across projects, which were generally exploratory and open-ended and required cycles of biological hypothesis development and (in silico) testing. We find that biomedical research requires bioinformaticians that are highly trained, having the ability to think biologically, but investigating using computational rather than bench experiments. This is in contrast to the activities that are typically the basis for an independent career in biomedical informatics, namely developing new software and algorithms. These findings suggest that to foster team-based multidisciplinary research, institutions must adopt policies that recognize contributions to research by applied bioinformatics scientists.
| S-EPMC6785826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reproducibility has been shown to be limited in many scientific fields. This question is a fundamental tenet of scientific activity, but the related issues of reusability of scientific data are poorly documented. Here, we present a case study of our difficulties in reproducing a published bioinformatics method even though code and data were available. First, we tried to re-run the analysis with the code and data provided by the authors. Second, we reimplemented the whole method in a Python package to avoid dependency on a MATLAB license and ease the execution of the code on a high-performance computing cluster. Third, we assessed reusability of our reimplementation and the quality of our documentation, testing how easy it would be to start from our implementation to reproduce the results. In a second section, we propose solutions from this case study and other observations to improve reproducibility and research efficiency at the individual and collective levels.While finalizing our code, we created case-specific documentation and tutorials for the associated Python package StratiPy. Readers are invited to experiment with our reproducibility case study by generating the two confusion matrices (see more in section "Robustness: from MATLAB to Python, language and organization"). Here, we propose two options: a step-by-step process to follow in a Jupyter/IPython notebook or a Docker container ready to be built and run.
| S-EPMC6054242 | biostudies-literature