A global perspective on evolving bioinformatics and data science training needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioinformatics is now intrinsic to life science research, but the past decade has witnessed a continuing deficiency in this essential expertise. Basic data stewardship is still taught relatively rarely in life science education programmes, creating a chasm between theory and practice, and fuelling demand for bioinformatics training across all educational levels and career roles. Concerned by this, surveys have been conducted in recent years to monitor bioinformatics and computational training needs worldwide. This article briefly reviews the principal findings of a number of these studies. We see that there is still a strong appetite for short courses to improve expertise and confidence in data analysis and interpretation; strikingly, however, the most urgent appeal is for bioinformatics to be woven into the fabric of life science degree programmes. Satisfying the relentless training needs of current and future generations of life scientists will require a concerted response from stakeholders across the globe, who need to deliver sustainable solutions capable of both transforming education curricula and cultivating a new cadre of trainer scientists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".