Cited by 44Research Data Management PracticesSemantic Web and OntologiesBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

Grid-Enabled Measures

Open access
Moser, Richard P., Hesse, Bradford W., Shaikh, Abdul R., Courtney, Paul, Morgan, Glen, Augustson, Erik, Kobrin, Sarah, Levin, Kerry Y. +4 more·2011·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Scientists are taking advantage of the Internet and collaborative web technology to accelerate discovery in a massively connected, participative environment--a phenomenon referred to by some as Science 2.0. As a new way of doing science, this phenomenon has the potential to push science forward in a more efficient manner than was previously possible. The Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) database has been conceptualized as an instantiation of Science 2.0 principles by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with two overarching goals: (1) promote the use of standardized measures, which are tied to theoretically based constructs; and (2) facilitate the ability to share harmonized data resulting from the use of standardized measures. The first is accomplished by creating an online venue where a virtual community of researchers can collaborate together and come to consensus on measures by rating, commenting on, and viewing meta-data about the measures and associated constructs. The second is accomplished by connecting the constructs and measures to an ontological framework with data standards and common data elements such as the NCI Enterprise Vocabulary System (EVS) and the cancer Data Standards Repository (caDSR). This paper will describe the web 2.0 principles on which the GEM database is based, describe its functionality, and discuss some of the important issues involved with creating the GEM database such as the role of mutually agreed-on ontologies (i.e., knowledge categories and the relationships among these categories--for data sharing).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.004

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Grid-Enabled Measures Project and the SIRC Instrument Review Project are organized around the Proctor 2011 taxonomy.

    “The Grid-Enabled Measures Project [10] and The Society for Implementation Research Collaborative (SIRC) Instrument Review Project [11] are organized around the Proctor 2011 taxonomy.”

    From Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review (2023) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Principles Guiding Development section describes GEM’s interface as organized into constructs, measures, and data sets; the Abstract describes its Science 2.0 basis. Neither passage establishes whether GEM is organized around the Proctor 2011 taxonomy, and searches for Proctor and implementation-outcome terms found no such statement. This source does not address the separately cited SIRC project. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [1]1. Langenberg DA. Information technology and the conduct of research: the user's view. Washington: National Academies Press, 1989.
  2. [11]11. Waldrop MM. Science 2.0. Sci Am 2008;298(5):68 -73.
  3. [12]12. Shneiderman B. Computer science. Science 2.0. Science 2008; 319(5868):1349 -50.
  4. [49]49. Kleppner D, Sharp PA, Whitesides GM. Ensuring the integrity, acces- sibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. Washing- ton: National Academies Press, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moser, R. P., Hesse, B. W., Shaikh, A. R., Courtney, P., Morgan, G., Augustson, E., Kobrin, S., Levin, K. Y., Helba, C., Garner, D., Dunn, M., & Coa, K.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Westat (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Moser, Richard P.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
S134-S143
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1578674874
Cited by
44
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
18.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
standardized outcome measures, cancer research, data harmonization, data sharing, ontology (information science), common data elements, Science 2.0, Web 2.0, virtual research communities
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Medical Informatics, Research, United States, Databases, Factual, Vocabulary, Controlled, Internet, National Cancer Institute (U.S.)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review