{"title":"The reproducibility gap in graph neural network workflows for cell dynamics: A checklist-driven case study","authors":"Martin Schätz, Ko Sugawara","doi":"10.1111/jmi.70139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As part of a Global BioImage Analysts' Society (GloBIAS) initiative, we evaluated the reproducibility of a Graph Neural Network (GNN) study on cell dynamics using structured, community-developed checklists from the Quality Assessment and Reproducibility for Instruments and Images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative. Notably, these checklists were published after the 2022 Target Paper, meaning our assessment is necessarily retrospective. Our assessment revealed a gap between recent reporting standards and practical execution. Reproduction attempts across multiple environments confirmed deficiencies, including the absence of explicit image metadata (pixel size and timestamps), which limits quantitative interpretation. Furthermore, the absence of a software container, which was typical for the time of publication and the incomplete dependency list, necessitated complex manual environment configuration, increasing the barrier to entry. This experience highlights the contrast between the reproducibility expectations at the time and newer standards achieved by minimal compliance and true functional access. We conclude by presenting a detailed discussion of the broader implications for the quantitative biology community and propose actionable recommendations including robust environment containerisation and standardised data deposition to ensure complex computational workflows become scientifically sound and reusable resources. This retrospective case study evaluates a legacy computational paper against modern reproducibility framework, not to critique past non-compliance, but to extract actionable lessons for future research standards</p>","PeriodicalId":16484,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microscopy","volume":"304 2","pages":"116-126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jmi.70139","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microscopy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jmi.70139","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MICROSCOPY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
As part of a Global BioImage Analysts' Society (GloBIAS) initiative, we evaluated the reproducibility of a Graph Neural Network (GNN) study on cell dynamics using structured, community-developed checklists from the Quality Assessment and Reproducibility for Instruments and Images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative. Notably, these checklists were published after the 2022 Target Paper, meaning our assessment is necessarily retrospective. Our assessment revealed a gap between recent reporting standards and practical execution. Reproduction attempts across multiple environments confirmed deficiencies, including the absence of explicit image metadata (pixel size and timestamps), which limits quantitative interpretation. Furthermore, the absence of a software container, which was typical for the time of publication and the incomplete dependency list, necessitated complex manual environment configuration, increasing the barrier to entry. This experience highlights the contrast between the reproducibility expectations at the time and newer standards achieved by minimal compliance and true functional access. We conclude by presenting a detailed discussion of the broader implications for the quantitative biology community and propose actionable recommendations including robust environment containerisation and standardised data deposition to ensure complex computational workflows become scientifically sound and reusable resources. This retrospective case study evaluates a legacy computational paper against modern reproducibility framework, not to critique past non-compliance, but to extract actionable lessons for future research standards
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Microscopy is the oldest journal dedicated to the science of microscopy and the only peer-reviewed publication of the Royal Microscopical Society. It publishes papers that report on the very latest developments in microscopy such as advances in microscopy techniques or novel areas of application. The Journal does not seek to publish routine applications of microscopy or specimen preparation even though the submission may otherwise have a high scientific merit.
The scope covers research in the physical and biological sciences and covers imaging methods using light, electrons, X-rays and other radiations as well as atomic force and near field techniques. Interdisciplinary research is welcome. Papers pertaining to microscopy are also welcomed on optical theory, spectroscopy, novel specimen preparation and manipulation methods and image recording, processing and analysis including dynamic analysis of living specimens.
Publication types include full papers, hot topic fast tracked communications and review articles. Authors considering submitting a review article should contact the editorial office first.