Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
20,299
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
20,299 results for “Systematic”
Clinical evidence for high-risk CE-marked medical devices for glucose management: a systematic review and meta-analysis
<p><strong><span>Aims: </span></strong><span>High-risk medical devices are increasingly used in diabetes management, but<span><span> there are no specific European recommendations on how they should be evaluated. Within</span></span> the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating CE-marked high-risk devices for glucose management. </span></p> <p><strong><span>Materials and Methods: </span></strong><span>We<span> identified interventional and observational studies evaluating the </span>efficacy and safety of 8 automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, 2 implantable insulin pumps, and 3 implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices.<span> </span></span><span>We meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AID systems with other treatments.</span></p> <p><strong><span>Results:</span></strong><span> 99 studies published from 2009–2022 were included, comprising 83 on AID systems, 6 on insulin pumps, and 10 on CGM; 43% reported industry funding;30% were pre-market; 45% had a comparator group. 33% were RCTs, 25% non-randomized trials, and 41% observational studies. Median sample size was 52 (interquartile range 25–111), age 37.8 years (17–45.5), and study duration 13 weeks (4.5–26). AID systems lowered HbA1c by 0.3 percentage points (absolute mean difference [MD]=-0.3; 9 RCTs; I<sup>2</sup>=85%) and increased time in target range for sensor glucose level by 10.5 percentage points (MD=10.5; 14 RCTs; I<sup>2</sup>=89%). 69% of studies reported on at least one safety outcome.</span></p> <p><strong><span>Conclusions:</span></strong><span> High-risk devices for glucose monitoring or insulin dosing, in particular AID systems, improve glucose control safely but evidence on diabetes-related end organ damage is lacking due to short study durations. Methodological heterogeneity highlights the need for d<span><span>eveloping standards for future pre- and post-market investigations of diabetes-specific high-risk medical devices.</span></span></span></p>
Systematic reconstruction of molecular pathway signatures using scalable single-cell perturbation screens
<p>This repo contains Seurat objects, differential expression analysis results, and pathway gene lists for the manuscript "Systematic reconstruction of molecular pathway signatures using scalable single-cell perturbation screens"<br>List of files:</p> <p>1. Seurat_object_IFNB_Perturb_seq.rds: Seurat object of the Perturb-seq data for Interferon-beta pathway<br>2. Seurat_object_IFNG_Perturb_seq.rds: Seurat object of the Perturb-seq data for Interferon-gamma pathway<br>3. Seurat_object_TNFA_Perturb_seq.rds: Seurat object of the Perturb-seq data for TNF-alpha pathway<br>4. Seurat_object_TGFB1_Perturb_seq.rds: Seurat object of the Perturb-seq data for TGF-beta1 pathway<br>5. Seurat_object_INS_Perturb_seq.rds: Seurat object of the Perturb-seq data for insulin pathway<br>6. Pathway_genelist.rds: The pathway gene lists from MultiCCA analysis<br>7. Pathway_Exclusive_genelist.rds: The pathway exclusive gene lists generated from Pathway_genelist.rds<br>8. HClust_Pathway_celltype_specific_genelist.rds: The cell-line specific pathway gene lists from hierarchical clustering analysis independently done on each cell line<br>9. DE_results_all_pathway.zip: The DE test results for all the regulators, cell lines, and pathways (from Mixscale weighted DE test.)<br>10. Bulk_RNAseq_Seurat_object_IFNG_and_TGFB_stim.rds: Seurat object for the bulk RNA-seq data for interferon-gamma and TGF-beta stimulation experiments<br>11. Parse_Guide_Capture_Protocol.pdf: The guide RNA capture protocol developed for Parse Evercode Whole Transcriptome kit</p>
Systematic review data on the role of urban planning in the context of sustainability transformations and human-nature connections
<p>This data publication belongs to the following research paper:<br>Harms, P., Hofer, M. & Artmann, M. Planning cities with nature for sustainability transformations — a systematic review. Urban Transform 6, 9 (2024). <br>https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-024-00066-2 </p> <p>We conducted a systematic literature review according to the PRISMA Statement 2020 (Page et al. 2021). The list shows the steps performed and the names of the corresponding datasets available here:</p> <p>Step A - Identification of Records<br>A_01_PRISMA-protocoll.pdf<br>A_02_searchstring.txt<br>A_03_recordsidentified.ris</p> <p>Step B - Screening of Records<br>B_01_recordsscreened-title-keywords.ris<br>B_02_recordsscreened-abstract.ris<br>B_03_recordsscreened-fulltext.ris<br>B_04_studiesincluded.ris<br>B_05_screeningdecisions-overview.xlsx</p> <p>Step C - Qualitative Analysis<br>C_01_codingscheme.xlsx</p> <p> </p>
Reproduction package for paper "How far are we from reproducible research on code smell detection? A systematic literature review"
<p>Checklist and data extracted from publications analyzed for "How far are we from reproducible research on code smell detection? A systematic literature review" paper, together with processing scripts and calculations of Cohen's Kappa.</p> <p>Paper that describes details of the data is available here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106783</p>
Systematic Evaluation and Usability Analysis of Formal Tools for Railway System Design - Technical Annexes
<p>This package includes additional data for the paper ``Systematic Evaluation and Usability Analysis of Formal Methods Tools for Railway Signalig System Design'', by Alessio Ferrari, Franco Mazzanti, Davide Basile, and Maurice ter Beek, CNR-ISTI, Italy, accepted for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2021.3124677</p> <p>The paper concerns the systematic evaluation and usability analysis of 14 formal tools for system design, namely CADP (2020-g), FDR4(4.2.7), NuSMV(1.1.1), ProB(1.9.3), Atelier B (4.5.1), Simulink (R2020a), SPIN (6.4.9), UMC (4.8), UPPAAL (4.1.4), mCLR2 (202006.0), SAL (3.3), TLA+ (2) and CPN Tools (4.0). The current package includes the following content:</p> <ol> <li>Tool Evaluation Template and .pdf: a document including the reference evaluation template, and the evaluation sheet of each tool. </li> <li>Tool Evaluation Table.xlsx: a table summarizing the results of the evaluation.</li> <li>System Usability Test - SUS Results.xlsx: an excel file with multiple sheets with all the raw results of the usability test for the tools.</li> </ol>
Mixed methods systematic review and metasummary about barriers and facilitators for the implementation of cotrimoxazole and isoniazid - preventive therapies for people living with HIV.
<p>This is the minimal data set underlying the findings of our systematic review and metasummary:</p> <p>We uploaded the following data extracted from the studies included in our review:</p> <p>- Systematic Review protocol, also published in PROSPERO (CRD42019137778).</p> <p>- detailed description of studies included in our review.</p> <p>- barriers identified in the review (metasummary).</p> <p>- facilitators identified in the review.</p>
Data used to create figures and tables in the ACP manuscript "Two-way coupled meteorology and air quality models in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of impacts of aerosol feedbacks on meteorology and air quality" by Gao et al. (2022)
<p>This dataset contains the original data that extracted from all collected papers refering applications of two-way coupled models in Asia. It is supplied to the review paper, which titled as "Review on two-way coupled meteorology and air quality models in Asia: impacts of aerosol feedbacks on meteorology and air quality". The dataset includes three excel files (in the format of xlsx) as follows:</p> <p>1. Basic information of literatures (Table S1.xlsx)</p> <p>2. Model performance metrics (Table S2.xlsx)</p> <p>3. Quantitative results of aerosol effects on meteorological and air quality variables (Table S3.xlsx)</p> <p>4. Basic information of model setup for two-way coupled model applications in Asia (Table S4.xlsx)</p> <p>5. Summary of aerosol-induced variations of simulated shortwave and longwave radiative forcing at the bottom and top of atmosphere and in the atmosphere in Asia (Table S5.xlsx)</p> <p>.</p>
Dataset: Systematic Mapping Study on the Development and Application of Sentiment Analysis Tools in Software Engineering
<p>Update: We updated the data set in March 2022 by adding newly published papers and by providing more insights on how we analyzed them. Details can be found in the file " SEnti-SMS.xlsx".</p> <p>----------</p> <p>Update: The updated version (-v2) contains the results of one more snowballing iteration and extracted information on the accuracy of the used methods.</p> <p>----------</p> <p>In 2020, we conducted a systematic literature review to explore the development and application of sentiment analysis tools in software engineering.</p> <p>Information on the execution of the SLR, its scope, the search string, etc. are presented in the paper linked below.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Towards a systematic approach to manual annotation of code smells - C# Dataset of Long Method and Large Class code smells
<p>This dataset includes open-source projects written in C# programing language, annotated for the presence of Long Method and God Class code smells. Each instance was manually annotated by at least two annotators. We explain our motivation and methodology for creating this dataset in our <a href="https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/Towards_a_systematic_approach_to_manual_annotation_of_code_smells/14159183/1">preprint</a>:</p> <p>Luburić, N., Prokić, S., Grujić, K.G., Slivka, J., Kovačević, A., Sladić, G. and Vidaković, D., 2021. Towards a systematic approach to manual annotation of code smells. </p> <p>The dataset contains two excel datasheets:</p> <ul> <li><em>DataSet_Large Class.xlsx</em> – C# classes annotated for the Large Class code smell severity.</li> <li><em>DataSet_Long Method.xlsx</em> – C# methods annotated for the Long method code smell severity.</li> </ul> <p> The columns in the datasheet represent:</p> <ul> <li><em>Code Snippet ID</em> – the full name of the code snippet. <ul> <li>For classes, this is the package/namespace name followed by the class name. The full name of inner classes also contains the names of any outer classes (e.g., <em>namespace.subnamespace.outerclass.innerclass</em>).</li> <li>For methods, this is the full name of the class and the methods’s signature (e.g., <em>namespace.class.method(param1Type, param2Type)</em> ).</li> </ul> </li> <li><em>Link </em>– The GitHub link to the code snippet, including the commit and the start and end LOC.</li> <li><em>Code Smell </em>– code smell for which the code snippet is examined (Large Class or Long Method).</li> <li><em>Project Link </em>– the link to the version of the code repository that was annotated.</li> <li><em>Metrics </em>– a list of metrics for the code snippet, calculated by our <a href="https://github.com/Clean-CaDET/platform#readme">platform</a>. Our dataset provides 25 class-level metrics for Large Class detection and 18 method-level metrics for Long Method detection The list of metrics and their definitions is available <a href="https://github.com/Clean-CaDET/platform/blob/c4acff95ec00ff6c25fa62dde4818c1f40e39d39/CodeModel/CaDETModel/CodeItems/CaDETMetrics.cs">here</a>.</li> <li><em>Final annotation </em>– a single severity score calculated by a majority vote. </li> <li><em>Annotators </em>– each annotator's (1, 2, or 3) assigned severity score.</li> </ul> <p>To help guide their reasoning for evaluating the presence and the severity of a code smell, three annotators independently annotated whether the considered heuristics apply to an evaluated code snippet. We provide these results in two separate excel datasheets:</p> <ul> <li><em>LargeClass_Heuristics.xlsx </em>- C# classes annotated for the presence of heuristics relevant for the Large Class code smell.</li> <li><em>LongMethod_Heuristics.xlsx </em>- C# classes annotated for the presence of heuristics relevant for the Large Class code smell.</li> </ul> <p>The columns of these two datasheets are:</p> <ul> <li><em>Code Snippet ID </em>- the full name of the code snippet (matching the IDs from <em>DataSet_Large Class.xlsx </em>and <em>DataSet_Long Method.xlsx</em>)</li> <li><em>Annotators</em> – heuristics labelled by each of the annotators (1, 2, or 3).</li> <li><em>Heuristics </em>– whether the heuristic is applicable to the examined code snippet or not (Section 1.2.4 lists heuristics relevant for the Large Class detection, and Section 1.2.5 lists the heuristics relevant for the Long Method detection).</li> </ul>
Dataset: A systematic multi-technique comparison of luminescence characteristics of two reference quartz samples
<p>Original dataset corresponding to the manuscript Schmidt et al. submitted to the Journal of Luminescence. The dataset is structured as follows: </p> <ul> <li>01_original_data <ul> <li>This folder contains the original measurement data for each experiment (e.g., LM-OSL, TL), organised following the manuscript figures, e.g., Fig_4. These subfolders contain the original measurement data and the measurement sequence. For Risø readers, the output format is *.binx and *.xsyg for results from the Freiberg Instruments lexsyg readers (e.g., TR-OSL).</li> </ul> </li> <li>02_processed_data <ul> <li>Comma-separated value (*.csv) to reproduce each figure in the manuscript. </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p> </p>
Systematic assessment of pathway databases, based on a diverse collection of user-submitted experiments
<p><strong>Supplemental data for the manuscript </strong></p> <p><strong>"Systematic assessment of pathway databases, based on a diverse collection of user-submitted experiments".</strong></p> <p>Content</p> <ul> <li>functional_annotations.tar.gz <ul> <li> functional annotations for 10 different functional annotation systems, for 5090 species</li> </ul> </li> <li> genome_info_and_statistics.tar.gz <ul> <li>basic genome info, annotation system statistics, user query statistics</li> </ul> </li> <li>example_user_queries.tar.gz <ul> <li>three example files for user query inputs used in the analysis </li> </ul> </li> <li>README.txt <ul> <li>details about the files and file formats</li> </ul> </li> </ul>
Supplemental Material for a Systematic Literature Review on Benchmarks for Evaluating Debugging Approaches
<p>Bug benchmarks are used in development and evaluation of debugging approaches. Quantitative performance comparison of different debugging approaches is only possible when they have been evaluated on the same dataset or benchmark. However, benchmarks are often specialized towards usage for certain debugging approaches in their contained data, metrics, and artifacts. Such benchmarks can not be easily used on debugging approaches outside their scope as such approach may rely on specific data such as bug reports or code metrics not included in the dataset. Furthermore, benchmarks vary in their size w.r.t. the number of subject programs and the size of the individual subject programs. For these reasons, we have performed a systematic literature review where we have identified 73 benchmarks that can be used to evaluate debugging approaches.</p> <p>We compare the different benchmarks with respect to their size and the provided information such as bug reports, contained test cases, and other code metrics. Furthermore, we have investigated how well the benchmarks realize the <a href="https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/">FAIR guiding principles</a>. This comparison is intended to help researchers to quickly identify all suitable benchmarks for evaluating their specific debugging approaches. More information can be found in the publication:</p> <blockquote> <p>Thomas Hirsch and Birgit Hofer: "A Systematic Literature Review on Benchmarks for Evaluating Debugging Approaches", Journal of Systems and Software, in press, 2022.</p> </blockquote>
UK Biobank release and systematic evaluation of optimised polygenic risk scores for 53 diseases and quantitative traits
<p>Summary-level GWAS data for 53 traits generated by <a href="https://www.genomicsplc.com/">Genomics plc</a> as presented in:</p> <p>Thompson D. et al. UK Biobank release and systematic evaluation of optimised polygenic risk scores for 53 diseases and quantitative traits (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.16.22276246">https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.16.22276246</a>)</p> <p>If you have any questions or comments regarding these files, please contact Genomics plc at <a href="mailto:research@genomicsplc.com">research@genomicsplc.com</a></p> <p><strong>NOTES</strong></p> <p>These analyses were carried out using the full UK Biobank (UKB) imputation data release (v3b). After removal of exclusions and withdrawals, a subset of 337,151 UKB individuals, the White British Unrelated (WBU) subgroup, was defined as the intersection of two sample groups created by Bycroft et al 2018 (Nature 562, 203-209): the ‘White British ancestry’ group (UKB Data Field 22006) and the ‘used in genetic principal components’ group (UKB Data Field 22020), the latter being high quality samples that were filtered to avoid closely related individuals. All GWAS analyses were performed on the WBU subgroup.</p> <p>Phenotypes were defined as described in Supplementary Table 1 ‘Phenotype definitions’ using a combination of Hospital Episode Statistics, Cancer Registry reports (where applicable) and self-report responses, with the exception of coronary artery disease (CAD). GWAS data was generated for both a “narrow” and a “broad” definition of CAD. The former was used as part of the training data for the Enhanced CAD PRS, the latter was used as part of the training data for the Enhanced CVD PRS. The phenotype definitions for “narrow” and a “broad” CAD are as follows:</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>Narrow CAD<br> (includes angina)</td> <td>ICD10 codes (where .X indicates all subcodes) from both hospital and death records: I21, I22, I23, I24.1, I25.2, I20.X. ICD9 codes: 410-412, 42979, 413.X. OPCS-4 codes (K40.1–40.4, K41.1–41.4, K45.1–45.5,K49.1–49.2, K49.8–49.9, K50.2, K75.1–75.4, K75.8–75.9), self-reported heart attack (UKB codes 1075 in field 20002; code 1 in field 6150), self-reported coronary angioplasty (ptca) or coronary artery bypass graft (UKB codes 1070 and 1095 in field 20004), self-reported angina.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Broad CAD<br> (includes angina and all ischaemic heart disease)</td> <td>As for Narrow CAD, plus ICD10 codes I24.X, I25X, and ICD9 codes 414.X (where .X indicates all subcodes).</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Note that there is no GWAS for cardiovascular disease (CVD) per se. This is because the UKB training data for the Enhanced CVD PRS consisted of separate GWASs for “narrow” CAD and ischaemic stroke.</p> <p>All analyses included Age at assessment, sex (for non-sex specific traits), genotyping chip, and 10 principal components as covariates.</p> <p>GWAS summary statistics for each trait were generated by applying PLINK 2.0 to the WBU subgroup, using a logistic regression for disease traits, and a linear regression model for quantitative traits. For chromosome X variants males were treated as having 0 or 2 alternative alleles.</p> <p>The results are not adjusted for genomic control.</p> <p><strong>DATA FILE CONTENT DESCRIPTION (DISEASE TRAITS)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>cpra</td> <td>Variant ID in ‘CPRA’ format. Position reflects position in b37</td> </tr> <tr> <td>chrom</td> <td>Chromosome</td> </tr> <tr> <td>pos</td> <td>Position in base pairs (b37, 1-based)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>alt</td> <td>Alternative allele (effect allele)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>beta</td> <td>Effect size (log odds ratio)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>standard_error</td> <td>Standard error of beta</td> </tr> <tr> <td>minus_log10_p</td> <td>Minus log(base 10) of P-value</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ref</td> <td>Reference allele (non-effect allele)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ncase</td> <td>Number of cases</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ncontrol</td> <td>Number of controls</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>DATA FILE CONTENT DESCRIPTION (QUANTITATIVE TRAITS)</strong></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>cpra</td> <td>Variant ID in ‘CPRA’ format. Position reflects position in b37</td> </tr> <tr> <td>chrom</td> <td>Chromosome</td> </tr> <tr> <td>pos</td> <td>Position in base pairs (b37, 1-based)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>alt</td> <td>Alternative allele (effect allele)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>beta</td> <td>Effect size</td> </tr> <tr> <td>standard_error</td> <td>Standard error of beta</td> </tr> <tr> <td>minus_log10_p</td> <td>Minus log(base 10) of P-value</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ref</td> <td>Reference allele (non-effect allele)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>ntotal</td> <td>Total sample size</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>FILE NAMES</strong></p> <p>The following is a list of traits and their corresponding file names.</p> <p><em><strong>DISEASE TRAITS</strong></em></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>Age-related macular degeneration</td> <td>amd_strict_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Alzheimer's disease</td> <td>alzheimers_disease_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Asthma</td> <td>asthma_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Atrial fibrillation</td> <td>atrial_fibrillation_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bipolar disorder</td> <td>bipolar_disorder_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Bowel cancer</td> <td>CRC_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Breast cancer</td> <td>BC_UKB_WBU_women.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Coeliac disease</td> <td>celiac_disease_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Narrow coronary artery disease</td> <td>NARROW_CAD_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Broad coronary artery disease</td> <td>BROAD_CAD_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Crohn's disease</td> <td>crohns_disease_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Epithelial ovarian cancer</td> <td>OC_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Hypertension</td> <td>HT_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ischaemic stroke</td> <td>IS_stroke_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Melanoma</td> <td>melanoma_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Multiple sclerosis</td> <td>multiple_sclerosis_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Osteoporosis</td> <td>OP_WBU_training.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Prostate cancer</td> <td>PC_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Parkinson's disease</td> <td>parkinsons_disease_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Primary open angle glaucoma</td> <td>POAG_WBU_training.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Psoriasis</td> <td>psoriasis_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rheumatoid arthritis</td> <td>rheumatoid_arthritis_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Schizophrenia</td> <td>schizophrenia_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Systemic lupus erythematosus</td> <td>lupus_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Type 1 diabetes</td> <td>t1d_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Type 2 diabetes</td> <td>T2D_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ulcerative colitis</td> <td>ulcerative_colitis_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Venous thromboembolic disease</td> <td>VTE_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><em><strong>QUANTITATIVE TRAITS</strong></em></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>Age at menopause</td> <td>age_at_menopause_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Apolipoprotein A1</td> <td>apolipoprotein_a1_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Apolipoprotein B</td> <td>apolipoprotein_b_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Body mass index</td> <td>bmi_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Calcium</td> <td>calcium_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Docosahexaenoic acid</td> <td>docosahexaenoic_acid_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Estimated bone mineral density T-score</td> <td>BMD_WBU_training.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Estimated glomerular filtration rate (creatinine based)</td> <td>egfr_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Estimated glomerular filtration rate (cystatin based)</td> <td>egfr_cys_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Glycated haemoglobin</td> <td>hba1c_UKB_WBU_nodiabetes.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>High density lipoprotein cholesterol</td> <td>hdl_cholesterol_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Height</td> <td>height_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Intraocular pressure</td> <td>iop_WBU_training.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Low density lipoprotein cholesterol</td> <td>ldl_UKB_WBU_nostatins.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Omega-6 fatty acids</td> <td>omega_6_fatty_acids_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Omega-3 fatty acids</td> <td>omega_3_fatty_acids_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Phosphatidylcholines</td> <td>phosphatidylcholines_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Phosphoglycerides</td> <td>phosphoglycerides_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Polyunsaturated fatty acids</td> <td>polyunsaturated_fatty_acids_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Resting heart rate</td> <td>resting_heart_rate_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Remnant cholesterol (Non-HDL, Non-LDL cholesterol)</td> <td>remnant_cholesterol__UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sphingomyelins</td> <td>sphingomyelins_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total cholesterol</td> <td>total_cholesterol_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total fatty acids</td> <td>total_fatty_acids_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Total triglycerides</td> <td>total_triglycerides_UKB_WBU.csv.gz</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Variation in Detected Adverse Events using Trigger Tools: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
<p>Raw data sets for the meta-analysis.</p> <p>Data collection file with all the information extracted from the included studies.</p> <p>QAT file with the information from the quality assessment tool (QAT) for all included studies.</p> <p>ReadMe with information on data sets and updates.</p> <p>Codebooks for both data sets.</p>
A Systematic Review on Techniques and Approaches to Estimate Mobile Software Energy Consumption (SUSCOM Dataset)
<p>Dataset and replication data for the systematic review entitled "A Systematic Review on Techniques and Approaches \\to Estimate Mobile Software Energy Consumption".</p>
GERDAT011 Literature search for publication - Geriatric assessment in the management of older patients with cancer – a systematic review (update).xlsx
<p>Search data belonging to the publication Geriatric assessment in the management of older patients with cancer – a systematic review (update)</p>
Random and systematic uncertainties for OMPS-LP ozone profiles
<p>This data set contains random and systematic uncertainties for ozone profiles retrieved at the University of Bremen from OMPS-LP observations. The uncertainties are expressed in relative values and are reported as vertical profiles (every 5 km) and as a function of latitude (5 bands, i.e., SH polar, SH mid-latitude, tropics, NH mid-latitudes, NH polar) and season. The user can associate to any OMPS-LP ozone profile the uncertainty corresponding to the appropriate latitude-season bin. The description of the uncertainties is provided in the AMT paper "Assessment of the error budget for stratospheric ozone profiles retrieved from OMPS limb scatter measurements", Arosio et al. 2022.</p>
Joint Modelling of Astrophysical Systematics (JMAS) data
<p>This dataset is part of the Joint Modelling of Astrophysical Systematics (JMAS) project and includes redshift distributions (NZ), intrinsic alignment amplitudes (IA), parametric sweeps for NZ and IA, data vectors and Fisher matrices.</p> <p>The data is intended to support the findings published in [add]. The code to recreate the plots can be found on <a href="https://github.com/nikosarcevic/JMAS" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JMAS GH Repository</a>.</p>
Data for: Systematic and highly resolved modelling of biodiversity in inherently rare groundwater amphipods (Journal of Biogeography, 2024)
<p>Original research article:</p> <p>Knüsel, M., Alther, R., Locher, N., Ozgul, A., Fišer, C. & Altermatt, F. (2024). Systematic and highly resolved modelling of biodiversity in inherently rare groundwater amphipods. <em>Journal of Biogeography</em>, https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14975.</p>
University dropout: A systematic review of the main determinant factors
<p><strong><span>Introduction:</span></strong><span> This research is a systematic review aimed at synthesizing scientific evidence on the causes of university dropout, focusing on the subcategories of vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects between 2020 and June 2024. <strong>Methods:</strong> Only articles addressing university dropout were considered, analyzing dimensions such as vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects. Articles published in indexed scientific journals with double-blind, double-blind peer, or open reviews between 2020 and June 2024 were included. The main databases used were Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. To assess the risk of bias in qualitative studies, the criteria from the article "Validity criteria for qualitative research: three epistemological strands for the same purpose" were used. For quantitative studies, the criteria from the article "Evaluating survey research in articles published in Library Science journals" were followed. For mixed-method studies, both sets of criteria were combined. <strong>Results:</strong> A total of 23 studies were included: 15 quantitative (65.22%), 3 qualitative (13.04%), and 5 mixed-method (21.74%). All studies (100%) addressed the subcategories of socioeconomic status and institutional aspects. Regarding the academic performance subcategory, 86% of the studies addressed it, while the vocational guidance subcategory was covered by 73.91% of the studies. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Vocational guidance, academic performance, socioeconomic status, and institutional aspects are crucial for reducing university dropout. Providing adequate professional guidance, academic support, financial assistance, and strong institutional support is fundamental to improving student retention and academic success.</span></p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.