Information silos distort biomedical research

Abstract

Information silos have been an oft-maligned feature of scientific research for introducing a bias towards knowledge that is produced within a scientist's own community. The vastness of the scientific literature has been commonly blamed for this phenomenon, despite recent improvements in information retrieval and text mining. Its actual negative impact on scientific progress, however, has never been quantified. This analysis attempts to do so by exploring its effects on biomedical discovery, particularly in the discovery of relations between diseases, genes and chemical compounds. Results indicate that the probability that two scientific facts will enable the discovery of a new fact depends on how far apart these two facts were published within the scientific landscape. In particular, the probability decreases exponentially with the citation distance. Thus, the direction of scientific progress is distorted based on the location in which each scientific fact is published, representing a path-dependent bias in which originally closely-located discoveries drive the sequence of future discoveries. To counter this bias, scientists should open the scope of their scientific work with modern computational approaches.

An exploration of knowledge‐organizing technologies to advance transdisciplinary back pain research

“…There is also a reporting bias, as negative results, and failed replications often remain unknown to those outside that silo. This reality can distort the literature by maintaining prevailing theories that are solely based on “positive” results 4,63 . These challenges may be reduced incrementally in the future as NIH recently published a Data Management and Sharing requirement that promotes sharing and broad accessibility to research data for reuse and external validation.…”

“…In fact, across the scientific spectrum, research is increasingly specialized, making it difficult to identify innovative connections beyond one's own area of research 3 . Rodriguez‐Esteban showed that bias resulting from biomedical siloization coupled with the extraordinary growth of the scientific literature distorts and hinders scientific progress 4 . For those focusing on back pain research, the resulting information silos can lead to narrow and biased syntheses of research observations and underrepresentation of crosstalk among biological, psychological, and social processes that mediate pain experiences over time.…”

“…Our motivating expectation is that applications of knowledge‐organizing technologies will help break down silos and facilitate identifying and accessing existing relevant siloed knowledge. Such applications will inject outside perspectives, ideally “catalytic”, that expand opportunities to broaden collaborative networks 3,5,9 . Additional anticipated outcomes include reducing bias, increasing innovation, and improving research translatability to benefit patients and their supporting stakeholders.…”

“… 3 Rodriguez‐Esteban showed that bias resulting from biomedical siloization coupled with the extraordinary growth of the scientific literature distorts and hinders scientific progress. 4 For those focusing on back pain research, the resulting information silos can lead to narrow and biased syntheses of research observations and underrepresentation of crosstalk among biological, psychological, and social processes that mediate pain experiences over time. Information silos hinder systematic scientific investigation of LBP phenomena and mechanisms.…”

“…Such applications will inject outside perspectives, ideally “catalytic”, that expand opportunities to broaden collaborative networks. 3 , 5 , 9 Additional anticipated outcomes include reducing bias, increasing innovation, and improving research translatability to benefit patients and their supporting stakeholders.…”