About: Minimum Information Standards is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 9 publications have been published within this topic receiving 225 citations.
TL;DR: Three areas of nanomedicine informatics are reviewed: information resources; taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, and ontologies; and information standards; and four types of information standards are considered, which are standard characterization protocols, common terminology standards, minimum information standards, and standard data communication (exchange) formats.
Abstract: There are several issues to be addressed concerning the management and effective use of information (or data), generated from nanotechnology studies in biomedical research and medicine. These data are large in volume, diverse in content, and are beset with gaps and ambiguities in the description and characterization of nanomaterials. In this work, we have reviewed three areas of nanomedicine informatics: information resources; taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, and ontologies; and information standards. Informatics methods and standards in each of these areas are critical for enabling collaboration; data sharing; unambiguous representation and interpretation of data; semantic (meaningful) search and integration of data; and for ensuring data quality, reliability, and reproducibility. In particular, we have considered four types of information standards in this article, which are standard characterization protocols, common terminology standards, minimum information standards, and standard data communication (exchange) formats. Currently, because of gaps and ambiguities in the data, it is also difficult to apply computational methods and machine learning techniques to analyze, interpret, and recognize patterns in data that are high dimensional in nature, and also to relate variations in nanomaterial properties to variations in their chemical composition, synthesis, characterization protocols, and so on. Progress toward resolving the issues of information management in nanomedicine using informatics methods and standards discussed in this article will be essential to the rapidly growing field of nanomedicine informatics.
TL;DR: Systems biology aims at understanding the behavior of biological networks by mathematical modeling based on experimental data and standardization is required to facilitate data exchange between different research groups and the assembly of large integrated models providing novel biological insights.
TL;DR: This chapter discusses the development and use of the VPH/Physiome standards, tools and databases, and also discusses the minimum information standards and ontology-based metadata standards that are complementary to the markup language standards.
Abstract: The VPH/Physiome project is developing tools and model databases for computational physiology based on three primary model encoding standards: CellML, SBML and FieldML. For the modelling community these standards are the equivalent of the DICOM standard for the clinical imaging community and it is important that the tools adhere to these standards to ensure that models from different groups can be curated, annotated, reused and combined. This chapter discusses the development and use of the VPH/Physiome standards, tools and databases, and also discusses the minimum information standards and ontology-based metadata standards that are complementary to the markup language standards. Data standards are not as well developed as the model encoding standards (with the DICOM standard for medical image encoding being the outstanding exception) but one new data standard being developed as part of the VPH/Physiome suite is BioSignalML and this is described here also. The PMR2 (Physiome Model Repository 2) database for CellML and FieldML files is also described, together with the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that facilitate access to the models from the visualization (cmgui and GIMIAS) or computational (OpenCMISS, OpenCell/OpenCOR and other) software.
TL;DR: The role and development processes of minimum information standards are clarified, and a similar experience that the ProteomeBinders Consortium led to a distinction between minimum information guidelines for describing a binder and its efficiency as a molecular tool, and the need to define community standards for experimental binder assessment is related.
TL;DR: This article collates web-based resources related to minimum information standards with relevance to the readership of Transplantation.
Abstract: Minimum Information Standards James Hutchinson Links [A] http://mibbi.sourceforge.net/portal.shtml [B] http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/miame.html [C] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/ [D] http://www.gene-quantification.info/ [E] http://www.rdml.org/ [F] http://miataproject.org/ [G] http://flowcyt.sourceforge.net/ [H] http://www.psidev.info/miabe [I] https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ [J] https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/ [K] http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/ To properly evaluate the conclusions of a scientific communication, readers must have access to certain essential information about experimental context, design, conduct, and analysis. As in other fields of biological research, the complexity and volume of transplantation experiments continue to increase, so clear reporting becomes ever more important. Consequently, there is growing enthusiasm among scientists and publishers for minimum information standards prescribingwhich “data about the data”must accompany certain types of experiment. Such standards impose greater transparency, but also make it easier for researchers to find, access, and integrate published information. Reporting standards thatwere originally developed by independent groups of specialists are now being gathered by the Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations project, which aims to eliminate redundancybetween sets of standards and to introduce a controlled vocabulary (A). This article collates web-based resources related to minimum information standards with relevance to the readership of Transplantation. TheMinimum Information about a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) guidelines were the archetype of such reporting standards and are nowwidely demanded by journals when publishing gene expression profiling studies by microarray. The MIAME checklist is concerned with 6 critical elements including: provision of the raw data for each hybridization; provision of the final processed and normalized dataset, essential sample annotation including experimental parameters, complete description of the experimental design, sufficient annotation of the array, and provision of essential laboratory and data processing protocols [B]. Authors can allow access to their datasets in various ways, including submission to a public library, such as the Gene Expression Omnibus repository at NCBI [C]. Critically, the development and adoption of MIAME has not only improved the comprehensibility and