Cited by 49Scientific Computing and Data ManagementGene Regulatory Network AnalysisResearch Data Management Practices

How Modeling Standards, Software, and Initiatives Support Reproducibility in Systems Biology and Systems Medicine

Open access
Waltemath, Dagmar, Wolkenhauer, Olaf·2016·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Only reproducible results are of significance to science. The lack of suitable standards and appropriate support of standards in software tools has led to numerous publications with irreproducible results. Our objectives are to identify the key challenges of reproducible research and to highlight existing solutions. RESULTS: In this paper, we summarize problems concerning reproducibility in systems biology and systems medicine. We focus on initiatives, standards, and software tools that aim to improve the reproducibility of simulation studies. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term success of systems biology and systems medicine depends on trustworthy models and simulations. This requires openness to ensure reusability and transparency to enable reproducibility of results in these fields.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2016.2555481

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Barriers to computational reproducibility include a lack of standardization for building and representing models, a lack of documentation on usage, and a lack of transparency by authors, in addition to simple coding errors and typos.

    “The barriers to computational reproducibility include a lack of standardization for building and representing models, a lack of documentation on usage, and a lack of transparency (sometimes intentional) by authors5 in addition to simple coding errors and typos.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waltemath, D., & Wolkenhauer, O.
Affiliations
University of Rostock (DE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2016-10
Volume
63
Issue
10
Pages
1999-2006
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2413797628
Cited by
49
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5
FWCI
13.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • BMBF e:Bio program (0316194)
  • BMBF project SysMet (0316171)
  • DFG funding for the project Models, mechanisms and complexity (WO 991/10-1)
  • CaSyM
  • EC FP7 coordinating action Coordinating Systems Medicine across Europe
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
reproducibility, systems biology, systems medicine, simulation study, modeling standards, software tools, research initiatives, model reuse, transparency, open science
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Biological, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Biomedical Research, Systems Biology

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