基因表达综合数据库中伴随组学研究的公共元数据完整性的系统评估。

Yu-Ning Huang, Pooja Vinod Jaiswal, Anushka Rajesh, Anushka Yadav, Dottie Yu, Fangyun Liu, Grace Scheg, Emma Shih, Grigore Boldirev, Irina Nakashidze, Aditya Sarkar, Jay Himanshu Mehta, Ke Wang, Khooshbu Kantibhai Patel, Mustafa Ali Baig Mirza, Kunali Chetan Hapani, Qiushi Peng, Ram Ayyala, Ruiwei Guo, Shaunak Kapur, Tejasvene Ramesh, Dumitru Ciorbă, Viorel Munteanu, Viorel Bostan, Mihai Dimian, Malak S Abedalthagafi, Serghei Mangul
{"title":"基因表达综合数据库中伴随组学研究的公共元数据完整性的系统评估。","authors":"Yu-Ning Huang, Pooja Vinod Jaiswal, Anushka Rajesh, Anushka Yadav, Dottie Yu, Fangyun Liu, Grace Scheg, Emma Shih, Grigore Boldirev, Irina Nakashidze, Aditya Sarkar, Jay Himanshu Mehta, Ke Wang, Khooshbu Kantibhai Patel, Mustafa Ali Baig Mirza, Kunali Chetan Hapani, Qiushi Peng, Ram Ayyala, Ruiwei Guo, Shaunak Kapur, Tejasvene Ramesh, Dumitru Ciorbă, Viorel Munteanu, Viorel Bostan, Mihai Dimian, Malak S Abedalthagafi, Serghei Mangul","doi":"10.1101/2021.11.22.469640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have made it possible to collect and share a massive amount of omics data, along with its associated metadata. Enhancing metadata availability is critical to ensure data reusability and reproducibility and to facilitate novel biomedical discoveries through effective data reuse. Yet, incomplete metadata accompanying public omics data may hinder reproducibility and reusability by reducing sample interpretability and limiting secondary analyses. In this study, we performed a comprehensive assessment of metadata completeness shared in both scientific publications and/or public repositories by analyzing over 253 studies encompassing over 164 thousands samples, including both human and non-human mammalian studies. We observed that studies often omit over a quarter of important phenotypes, with an average of only 74.8% of them shared either in the text of publication or the corresponding repository. Notably, public repositories alone contained 62% of the metadata, surpassing the textual content of publications by 3.5%. Only 11.5% of studies completely shared all phenotypes, while 37.9% shared less than 40% of the phenotypes. Studies involving non-human samples were more likely to share metadata than studies involving human samples. We observed similar results on the extended dataset spanning 2.1 million samples across over 61,000 studies from the Gene Expression Omnibus repository. The limited availability of metadata reported in our study emphasizes the necessity for improved metadata sharing practices and standardized reporting. Finally, we discuss the numerous benefits of improving the availability and quality of metadata to the scientific community and beyond, supporting data-driven decision-making and policy development in the field of biomedical research. This work provides a scalable framework for evaluating metadata availability and may help guide future policy and infrastructure development.</p>","PeriodicalId":72407,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12265520/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The systematic assessment of completeness of public metadata accompanying omics studies in the Gene Expression Omnibus.\",\"authors\":\"Yu-Ning Huang, Pooja Vinod Jaiswal, Anushka Rajesh, Anushka Yadav, Dottie Yu, Fangyun Liu, Grace Scheg, Emma Shih, Grigore Boldirev, Irina Nakashidze, Aditya Sarkar, Jay Himanshu Mehta, Ke Wang, Khooshbu Kantibhai Patel, Mustafa Ali Baig Mirza, Kunali Chetan Hapani, Qiushi Peng, Ram Ayyala, Ruiwei Guo, Shaunak Kapur, Tejasvene Ramesh, Dumitru Ciorbă, Viorel Munteanu, Viorel Bostan, Mihai Dimian, Malak S Abedalthagafi, Serghei Mangul\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2021.11.22.469640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have made it possible to collect and share a massive amount of omics data, along with its associated metadata. Enhancing metadata availability is critical to ensure data reusability and reproducibility and to facilitate novel biomedical discoveries through effective data reuse. Yet, incomplete metadata accompanying public omics data may hinder reproducibility and reusability by reducing sample interpretability and limiting secondary analyses. In this study, we performed a comprehensive assessment of metadata completeness shared in both scientific publications and/or public repositories by analyzing over 253 studies encompassing over 164 thousands samples, including both human and non-human mammalian studies. We observed that studies often omit over a quarter of important phenotypes, with an average of only 74.8% of them shared either in the text of publication or the corresponding repository. Notably, public repositories alone contained 62% of the metadata, surpassing the textual content of publications by 3.5%. Only 11.5% of studies completely shared all phenotypes, while 37.9% shared less than 40% of the phenotypes. Studies involving non-human samples were more likely to share metadata than studies involving human samples. We observed similar results on the extended dataset spanning 2.1 million samples across over 61,000 studies from the Gene Expression Omnibus repository. The limited availability of metadata reported in our study emphasizes the necessity for improved metadata sharing practices and standardized reporting. Finally, we discuss the numerous benefits of improving the availability and quality of metadata to the scientific community and beyond, supporting data-driven decision-making and policy development in the field of biomedical research. This work provides a scalable framework for evaluating metadata availability and may help guide future policy and infrastructure development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12265520/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.22.469640\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.22.469640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高通量测序技术的最新进展使得收集和共享大量组学数据及其相关元数据成为可能。提高元数据的可用性对于确保数据的可重用性和再现性以及通过有效的数据重用促进新的生物医学发现至关重要。然而,伴随公共组学数据的不完整元数据可能会降低样本的可解释性和限制二次分析,从而阻碍再现性和可重用性。在这项研究中,我们通过分析超过253项研究,包括超过16.4万个样本,包括人类和非人类哺乳动物研究,对科学出版物和/或公共存储库共享的元数据完整性进行了全面评估。我们观察到,研究经常忽略超过四分之一的重要表型,平均只有74.8%的表型在发表文本或相应的存储库中共享。值得注意的是,仅公共存储库就包含62%的元数据,比出版物的文本内容多3.5%。只有11.5%的研究完全共享所有表型,而37.9%的研究共享不到40%的表型。涉及非人类样本的研究比涉及人类样本的研究更有可能共享元数据。我们在基因表达综合库的61,000多项研究中,跨越210万个样本的扩展数据集中观察到类似的结果。在我们的研究中,元数据的有限可用性强调了改进元数据共享实践和标准化报告的必要性。最后,我们讨论了提高元数据的可用性和质量对科学界和其他领域的诸多好处,支持生物医学研究领域的数据驱动决策和政策制定。这项工作为评估元数据可用性提供了一个可扩展的框架,并可能有助于指导未来的政策和基础设施开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The systematic assessment of completeness of public metadata accompanying omics studies in the Gene Expression Omnibus.

Recent advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have made it possible to collect and share a massive amount of omics data, along with its associated metadata. Enhancing metadata availability is critical to ensure data reusability and reproducibility and to facilitate novel biomedical discoveries through effective data reuse. Yet, incomplete metadata accompanying public omics data may hinder reproducibility and reusability by reducing sample interpretability and limiting secondary analyses. In this study, we performed a comprehensive assessment of metadata completeness shared in both scientific publications and/or public repositories by analyzing over 253 studies encompassing over 164 thousands samples, including both human and non-human mammalian studies. We observed that studies often omit over a quarter of important phenotypes, with an average of only 74.8% of them shared either in the text of publication or the corresponding repository. Notably, public repositories alone contained 62% of the metadata, surpassing the textual content of publications by 3.5%. Only 11.5% of studies completely shared all phenotypes, while 37.9% shared less than 40% of the phenotypes. Studies involving non-human samples were more likely to share metadata than studies involving human samples. We observed similar results on the extended dataset spanning 2.1 million samples across over 61,000 studies from the Gene Expression Omnibus repository. The limited availability of metadata reported in our study emphasizes the necessity for improved metadata sharing practices and standardized reporting. Finally, we discuss the numerous benefits of improving the availability and quality of metadata to the scientific community and beyond, supporting data-driven decision-making and policy development in the field of biomedical research. This work provides a scalable framework for evaluating metadata availability and may help guide future policy and infrastructure development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信