Group items tagged

Why bother about openness and licensing for data? After all they don't matter in themselves: what we really care about are things like the progress of human knowledge or the freedom to understand and share.

The genome-wide association study (GWAS) publications listed here include only those attempting to assay at least 100,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the initial stage. Publications are organized from most to least recent date of publication, indexing from online publication if available. Studies focusing only on candidate genes are excluded from this catalog. Studies are identified through weekly PubMed literature searches, daily NIH-distributed compilations of news and media reports, and occasional comparisons with an existing database of GWAS literature (HuGE Navigator). SNP-trait associations listed here are limited to those with p-values < 1.0 x 10-5. Note that we are now including all identified SNP-trait associations meeting this p-value threshhold. Multipliers of powers of 10 in p-values are rounded to the nearest single digit; odds ratios and allele frequencies are rounded to two decimals. Standard errors are converted to 95 percent confidence intervals where applicable. Allele frequencies, p-values, and odds ratios derived from the largest sample size, typically a combined analysis (initial plus replication studies), are recorded below if reported; otherwise statistics from the initial study sample are recorded. Odds ratios < 1 in the original paper are converted to OR > 1 for the alternate allele. Where results from multiple genetic models are available, we prioritized effect sizes (OR's or beta-coefficients) as follows: 1) genotypic model, per-allele estimate; 2) genotypic model, heterozygote estimate, 3) allelic model, allelic estimate. Gene regions corresponding to SNPs were identified from the UCSC Genome Browser. Gene names are those reported by the authors in the original paper. Only one SNP within a gene or region of high linkage disequilibrium is recorded unless there was evidence of independent association.

his meeting was about "Making the Web Work for Science and the Impact of e-Science and the Cyberinfrastructure." I provided an overview of how access to information has changed over the past 20 years for me. I talked about the challenges for publishers serving the chemistry community and how their business models are being challenged and how I empathize with the struggle to figure out how to deal with it. I talked about quality and how care must be taken when using information online. We are ALL challenged with errors - whether you consider PubChem, ChemSpider, Wikipedia or any of the other online databases they all have errors - how do you find them? Some of them are obvious and I pointed to obvious examples in the talk. I hoped to educate the attendees in regards to the value of InChI which, while not a perfect fit yet, is a great start to structure-based communication of chemistry. I publicly blessed the efforts of publishers such as the RSC and Nature Publishing group for the efforts they are making to support InChI and improve the quality of document presentation online. I blessed CAS as a treasure trove of information and the gold standard of curated chemistry. We need them all to be successful for the sake of our science. The challenge is how to fit into the ongoing proliferation of free access to information without modifying the business models.

Importing magnet links would be great, because some sites only have magnet links. Mayby something like this: