bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2025.11.14.688517

Insights into the Datasets, Tools, and Training Needs of the AnVIL Community: 2024

Abstract

The NHGRI Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space (AnVIL) provides a secure cloud-based environment where research and education communities can analyze genomic and biomedical data. The platform supports a wide range of data analysis as well as the ability to safely store and access data in compliance with NIH policies. Work on the AnVIL platform can be easily shared to promote reproducible science and collaboration. The purpose of this study is to better understand the current user base of the AnVIL platform. The AnVIL Community Poll aimed to collect baseline information, identify development opportunities, guide the prioritization of user support strategies, and succinctly but comprehensively describe the current AnVIL Community. The AnVIL Team disseminated the inaugural AnVIL Community Poll by sharing it broadly on social media and through AnVIL and related consortia mailing lists. We categorized respondents as either returning or potential users of the AnVIL platform (based on their provided usage description) and examined user experiences: specifically user backgrounds, technological comfort, research interests, computational needs, and preferences for training and support. Our sample of the AnVIL community found opportunities for platform adoption beyond the current user base and identified areas where training should be enhanced, training preferences, and user computational needs. Specifically, while most respondents were involved in human genomics research, there may be potential for growth in adoption of the platform by prioritizing materials to support clinical researchers. All respondents felt availability of specific tools or datasets was a key feature of the platform. The broader community may also benefit from further development or showcasing of resources to facilitate cost management, finding and incorporating analysis tools, and data import. Our sample greatly preferred virtual training opportunities and returning users of the platform foresaw needing large amounts of storage. This poll provided an insightful snapshot of the current state of the AnVIL and demonstrated areas where the AnVIL Team can take specific steps to address barriers related to platform adoption and further support the existing and varied AnVIL Community. This work can be built upon through user interviews, community discussion, and coordinating a recurring poll.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Isaac, K. J., Cox, K. E. L., Ho, K. Y., Humphries, E. M., Kucher, N., Leek, J. T., Mosher, S., Schatz, M. C., Tan, F. J., Hoffman, A. M.. 2025-11-17. Insights into the Datasets, Tools, and Training Needs of the AnVIL Community: 2024. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.14.688517

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗