A novel framework for assessing metadata quality in epidemiological and public health research settings

Authors: Christiana McMahon, Spiros Denaxas

American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Joint Summits on Translational Science 2015

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1608.06079v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
The summary is not ready yet

Abstract: Metadata are critical in epidemiological and public health research. However, a lack of biomedical metadata quality frameworks and limited awareness of the implications of poor quality metadata renders data analyses problematic. In this study, we created and evaluated a novel framework to assess metadata quality of epidemiological and public health research datasets. We performed a literature review and surveyed stakeholders to enhance our understanding of biomedical metadata quality assessment. The review identified 11 studies and nine quality dimensions; none of which were specifically aimed at biomedical metadata. 96 individuals completed the survey; of those who submitted data, most only assessed metadata quality sometimes, and eight did not at all. Our framework has four sections: a) general information; b) tools and technologies; c) usability; and d) management and curation. We evaluated the framework using three test cases and sought expert feedback. The framework can assess biomedical metadata quality systematically and robustly.

Submitted to arXiv on 22 Aug. 2016

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.