Distinctive Gut Microbiota Alteration Is Associated with Poststroke Functional Recovery: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study

[Scholarpat]

Distinctive Gut Microbiota Alteration Is Associated with Poststroke Functional Recovery: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study – Yini Dang – Neural Plasticity https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2021/1469339

[Tino-code07]

Hello @SvetlanaUP may I be assigned this issue.

[Rahila-me]

@Tino-code07 Hope you are well. I am reaching out to you so that we can collaborate and get this curation done. If you need help feel free to reach out. Thank you

[Rahila-me]

@Tino-code07 Hope you are well. I am reaching out to you so that we can collaborate and get this curation done. If you need help feel free to reach out. Thank you

[Rahila-me]

@Tino-code07 Hope you are well. I am reaching out to you so that we can collaborate and get this curation done. If you need help feel free to reach out. Thank you

[Tino-code07]

@Rahila-me thank you will surely reach out when I need assistance.

[SvetlanaUP]

@Tino-code07 I see that the study was not even created yet. Feel free to reach out your colleagues and ask for help in Slack.

[Tino-code07]

@SvetlanaUP I had trouble adding my study automatically but I ended up doing it manually and I added the experiment but I am still working on adding the signatures. I am now confused if the study is reflecting to you as not created yet. I would appreciate any help. Thank you

[Rahila-me]

@Tino-code07 I saw what you did wrong can i help out. you created a study without adding the PMID. That's why is not reflecting in BugSigDB

[Tino-code07]

@Rahila-me I failed to identify the PMID on the study and just added the doi. I would appreciate your help doing so!

[Tino-code07]

@Rahila-me is it the one labelled article ID 1469339

[Rahila-me]

Lets talk on slack i am Liza

[Tino-code07]

@Rahila-me Thank you, indeed I had left out that article ID, now I have added it and my study is now reflecting on BugSigDb.

[SvetlanaUP]

I see it now as https://bugsigdb.org/Study_1170 Do not forget to claim it for review here, once it's ready.

[Tino-code07]

@SvetlanaUP my study is now ready for review.

[Tino-code07]

@svetlana_up After attending today's office hour I noticed some mistakes that I made in my curation. Is it possible to ask for my issue to be untagged from 'needs review' so that I can make the necessary edits.

[Tino-code07]

@SvetlanaUP After attending today's office hour I noticed some mistakes that I made in my curation. Is it possible to ask for my issue to be untagged from 'needs review' so that I can make the necessary edits.

[SvetlanaUP]

@Tino-code07 when the GitHub issue with your curation is claimed for review and got a label "needs review" any edits from this point are not allowed.

[Tino-code07]

@SvetlanaUP I noticed that not all my signatures are loaded when I click on my study link (https://bugsigdb.org/Study_1170). Signature_2 for experiment 2 is missing. However, it only appears when I enter (https://bugsigdb.org/Study_1170/Experiment_2/Signature_2). I have tried refreshing the page but still no change yet. Please help!

[Peacesandy]

Hi @Tino-code07 this is an excellent curation attempt 🎈

CURATION RESULTS

All elements marked "Needs review" (none "Incomplete") (1 point): 1 Correct study design (1 point): 1 Entered all relevant experiments and no irrelevant experiments (1 point): 1 Body site correctly identified (i.e. does not include multiple sites) (1 point): 1 Condition entered according to contrast (correct EFO ontology) (1 point): 1 Contrast groups correctly identified (1 point): 1 Groups correctly labeled as 1 and 0 (1=cases, 0=controls) (1 point): 1 Antibiotic exclusion correctly identified (1 point): 1 Correctly identified sequencing details (2 points): 2 Identified correct statistical test (1 point): 1 Identified MHT correction (1 point): 1 Correctly recorded matched on factors (1 point): 1 Entered correct number of statistical tests per experiment (1 point): 1 All diversity measures identified (1 point): 1 Diversity results correctly entered as increased/decreased/unchanged (1 point): 1 All signature sources correctly identified (-1 for each error) (2 points): 2 Abundance direction correctly selected (1 point): 1 Members of Signatures identified correctly (2 points): 2 Correct use of NCBI taxonomy (2 points): 2

Total (maximum 23 points): 23

[Peacesandy]

@SvetlanaUP https://bugsigdb.org/Study_1170 reviewed

[Tino-code07]

@Peacesandy Thank you for the review!