bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.07.06.498942

Accessibility and Reproducible Research Practices in Cardiovascular Literature

Heckerman, G.·Tzng, E.·Campos-Melendez, A.·Ekwueme, C.·Mueller, A.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundSeveral fields have described low reproducibility of scientific research and poor accessibility in research reporting practices. Although previous reports have investigated accessible reporting practices that lead to reproducible research in other fields, to date no study has explored the extent of accessible and reproducible research practices in cardiovascular science literature. MethodsTo study accessibility and reproducibility in cardiovascular research reporting, we screened 400 randomly selected articles published in 2019 in three top cardiovascular science publications: Circulation, the European Heart Journal, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). We screened each paper for accessible and reproducible research practices using a set of accessibility criteria including protocol, materials, data, and analysis script availability, as well as accessibility of the publication itself. We also quantified the consistency of open research practices within and across cardiovascular study types and journal formats. ResultsWe identified that fewer than 2% of cardiovascular research publications provide sufficient resources (materials, methods, data, and analysis scripts) to fully reproduce their studies. After calculating an accessibility score as a measure of the extent to which an articles makes its resources available, we also showed that the level of accessibility varies across study types (p = 2e-16) and across journals (p = 5.9e-13). We further show that there are significant differences in which study types share which resources. We also describe the relationship between accessibility scores and corresponding author nationality. ConclusionAlthough the degree to which reproducible reporting practices are present in publications varies significantly across journals and study types; current cardiovascular science reports frequently do not provide sufficient materials, protocols, data, or analysis information to reproduce a study. In the future, having higher standards of accessibility mandated by either journals or funding bodies will help increase the reproducibility of cardiovascular research. FundingAuthors Gabriel Heckerman, Arely Campos-Melendez, and Chisomaga Ekwueme were supported by an NIH R25 grant from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (R25HL147666). Eileen Tzng was supported by an AHA Institutional Training Award fellowship (18UFEL33960207).

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Heckerman, G., Tzng, E., Campos-Melendez, A., Ekwueme, C., Mueller, A.. 2022-07-07. Accessibility and Reproducible Research Practices in Cardiovascular Literature. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.06.498942

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

The landscape of biomedical research

The number of publications in biomedicine and life sciences has rapidly grown over the last decades, with over 1.5 million papers now being published every year. This makes it difficult to keep track of new scientific works and to have an overview of the evolution of the field as a whole. Here we present a 2D map of the entire corpus of biomedical literature, and argue that it provides a unique and useful overview of the life sciences research. We based our atlas on the abstract texts of 21 million English articles from the PubMed database. To embed the abstracts into 2D, we used the large language model PubMedBERT, combined with t-SNE tailored to handle samples of our size. We used our atlas to study the emergence of the Covid-19 literature, the evolution of the neuroscience discipline, the uptake of machine learning, the distribution of gender imbalance in academic authorship, and the distribution of retracted paper mill articles. Furthermore, we present an interactive web version of our atlas that allows easy exploration and will enable further insights and facilitate future research.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

Purchases dominate the carbon footprint of research laboratories

Despite increasing interest for the carbon footprint of higher education institutions, little is known about the carbon footprint associated to research activities. Air travel and attendance to conferences concentrate recent data and debates but purchases have attracted little attention. Here we develop a hybrid method to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) associated to research purchases. To do so, we combine macroe-conomic databases, research-centered companies footprints and life-cycle assesments to construct a public database of monetary emission factors (EF) for research purchases. We apply it to estimate the purchases emissions of a hundred of research laboratories in France, belonging to the Labos 1point5 network and gathering more than 20000 staff, from all disciplines. We find that purchases dominate laboratory emissions, accounting for more than 50% of emissions, with a median of 2.7 t CO2e/pers, which is 3 to 4-fold the separate contribution from travel, commutes and heating. Median electricity emissions are 5-fold lower in our dataset of laboratories using low carbon electricity but they become preponderant for high carbon electricity mixes (3.5 t CO2e/pers). Purchases emissions are very heterogeneous among laboratories and are linearly correlated with budget, with an average carbon intensity of 0.31 {+/-} 0.07 kg CO2e/{euro} and differences between research domains. Finally, we quantify the effect of a series of demand-driven mitigation strategies obtaining up to -20 % in total emissions (-40 % in purchases emissions), suggesting that effectively reducing the carbon footprint of research activities calls for systemic changes. Significance statementResearch activities are recently interrogating their contribution to global warming, mainly through the impact of air travel but neglecting the emissions embodied in scientific purchases. However, goods and services used in a research laboratory emit greenhouse gases when they are produced. Here we construct a public and robust database of emission factors to quantify purchases emissions in a laboratory and we use it to assess emissions from a hundred of laboratories in France, from all disciplines. We find that purchases emissions represent half of the of the 6.3 t CO2e/pers per year emitted on average per laboratory. Emissions, however, vary greatly between laboratories and disciplines and an analysis of mitigation strategies shows that decreasing demand may significantly reduce purchases emissions.

scientific communication and education↗