Rezultati pretraživanja
  1. 22. kol 2018.

    These authors write that "Most readers do not read the methods". For the record, I read the methods section of papers. This paper didn't have one. The authors just made stuff up and wrote a paper. . h/t

    Prikaži ovu nit
  2. 21. lip 2018.

    Her earlier work actually contained detailed flow charts, so I'll have to blame the lack of code above on space constraints (!). This is from the earliest publication I know that describes bioinformatics performed with a computer, in 1962.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  3. 4. tra 2019.

    First PhD study out! •Non-time-loss incidence depends on the person recording •Time-loss incidence not affected → Beware when interpreting studies using broad injury definitions and multiple recorders

  4. 15. pro 2019.

    Very nice work by Simoneau and colleagues - although, I am getting goose bumps at trying to digest Fig.2 (and this is really not a rant on pie charts 🙃)

    Prikaži ovu nit
  5. 4. kol 2018.

    I wonder who introduced Uzzah to the idea that methodology was not important? Any “thinking” person knows transporting the ark on a cart was more progressive and efficient than the outdated means of using poles. Hmmm...

  6. 26. lip 2018.

    We're thriled to see that officially recommends using for QC of novel isoforms in their new IsoSeq3 pipeline.

  7. 9. stu 2019.

    Benchmarking of tools is an essential element of genomic data science. Check out this special issue of devoted to benchmark studies!

  8. 4. lip 2018.

    New paper from from Joshua Levin's group! Comprehensive comparative analysis of 5′-end RNA-sequencing methods

  9. 1. stu 2019.

    Day after day... this strange jerk of a man tweets out nonsensical statements yet because he has accumulated wealth and power... we are forced to listen...even though the means by which that wealth was attained is criminal.

  10. 11. stu 2018.
  11. It’s deeply concerning that it’s come to this. We can all agree that research software is very important and yet developers struggle to get time and funding to maintain it. Sadly, this is the often norm not the exception for the fate of tools.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  12. 3. pro 2017.

    Researchers spend so much money on getting more sequencing reads, while they might get the same result by using newer (and completely free) read mapping software. This is why having a good bio-informatician in your group (or at least consulting one) is essential!

  13. 4. pro 2017.
  14. 16. kol 2018.

    Sampling the microbiome is full of instrument error, reagent bias, and biological confounders. So is all research. Use controls, run replicates, quantify your error, and approach all results with skepticism. Just like all research.

  15. People don't necessarily realize that such citations are important to seek funding to maintain and continue development of such tools/packages. By not doing this, they are hurting the entire scientific community. Give credit where credit is due.

  16. 14. lip 2018.

    Do you agree that ? If so, why do you make them available only in the HTML version of your papers? Do you think nobody reads them on planes? An option to have them in the PDF format would be a significant improvement for many.

  17. 22. kol 2018.
  18. 13. tra 2019.

    and language matters- umbrella reviews are not rapid reviews... they are just conducted more rapidly. Great point for consideration from

  19. 21. sij

    Main focus of paper is statistical issue of bias in maximum likelihood estimator of subnetwork; thus, we don't consign equations to supplement. However, also a practical algorithm, ready for analysis of network data

    Prikaži ovu nit
  20. 11. stu 2017.

    Storify of Twitterchat about how cartoons can be used to deepen research insights

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.