Skip to content

Summary of the eight computational reproducibility assessments conducted as part of STARS Work Package 1. These assessed discrete-event simulation papers with models in Python and R.

License

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

pythonhealthdatascience/stars_wp1_summary

Repository files navigation

Markdownify
STARS Work Package 1 Summary

Summary of the six computational reproducibility assessments conducted as part of STARS Work Package 1.

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.14267268 GitHub last commit MIT licence Valid CITATION.cff

Table of contents



👋 About the repository

In work package 1, we assessed the computational reproducibility of eight discrete-event simulation papers with models in Python and R. The reproductions and findings are summarised at: https://pythonhealthdatascience.github.io/stars_wp1_summary/.

Python R

Relevant GitHub repositories:

Repository Description
stars-reproduction-protocol Latex files for reproduction protocol
stars-reproduce-allen-2020 Test run of reproducibility protocol on Allen et al. 2020
stars-reproduction-template Template for assessment of computational reproducibility
stars-reproduce-shoaib-2022 Reproduction study 1: Shoaib and Ramamohan 2022 (Python)
stars-reproduce-huang-2019 Reproduction study 2: Huang et al. 2019 (R)
stars-reproduce-lim-2020 Reproduction study 3: Lim et al. 2020 (Python)
stars-reproduce-kim-2021 Reproduction study 4: Kim et al. 2021 (R)
stars-reproduce-anagnostou-2022 Reproduction study 5: Anagnostou et al. 2022 (Python)
stars-reproduce-johnson-2021 Reproduction study 6: Johnson et al. 2021 (R)
stars-reproduce-hernandez-2015 Reproduction study 7: Hernandez et al. 2015 (Python + R)
stars-reproduce-wood-2021 Reproduction study 8: Wood et al. 2021 (R)


📍 Locating tables and figures from the article

Figure/Table Method Location
Figure 1. Five standards that scientific code should strive to achieve, and the benefits of doing so Inkscape images/5rs.svg
Figure 2. Time to complete items in scope for each reproduction, inspired by figure in Krafczyk et al. 2021 Matplotlib Created within pages/reproduction.qmd, saved as images/article_times.png
Figure 3. Recommendations to support reproduction, with stars to highlight five recommendations considered to have the greatest potential impact. Inkscape images/reproduction_wheel.svg
Figure 4. Recommendations to support troubleshooting and reuse Inkscape images/troubleshooting_wheel.svg
Figure 5. Of the eight healthcare DES studies evaluated, proportion that met each recommendation in the current STARS framework. Plotly express Created within pages/repo_evaluation.qmd, saved as images/stars_criteria.png
Figure 6. Of the eight healthcare DES studies evaluated, proportion that met each item in the current STRESS-DES criteria. Plotly express Created within pages/paper_evaluation.qmd, saved as stress_criteria.png
Figure 7. Of the eight healthcare DES studies evaluated, proportion that met each criteria in the general reporting checklist for DES Plotly express Created within pages/paper_evaluation.qmd, saved as ispor_criteria.png
Table 2. Evaluation of repositories against ACM badge criteria. - Created within pages/repo_evaluation.qmd, saved as data/badges_table.csv (and Table 2 is an extract from that table)
Table 3. Proportion of applicable criteria that were fully met, from evaluation of repository or article, alongside the proportion of items reproduced from each study. - Combination of two tables: (1) data/applicable_stars.csv created within pages/repo_evaluation.qmd, and (2) data/applicable_report.csv created within pages/paper_evaluation.qmd
Table D1. Evaluation of studies against badge criteria - grouped into three themes, as defined by NISO. - Created within pages/repo_evaluation.qmd, saved as data/badges_table.csv

The remaining tables were created directly in the Latex article, rather than in this repository, as they are not describing results from reproduction:

  • Table 1. Description of the included studies.
  • Table 4. Simple checklists to assist reviewers in assessing the openness, longevity, and reproducibility of DES models during peer review.
  • Table B1. Links for reproduction and evaluation.
  • Table B2. Links to original study repositories.


📖 View book locally

The website is a quarto book hosted with GitHub pages. If you want to view the book locally on your own machine you will need to:

  1. Clone GitHub repository
git clone https://github.com/pythonhealthdatascience/stars_wp1_summary.git
  1. Create the virtual environment
virtualenv stars_wp1_summary
source stars_wp1_summary/bin/activate
pip install -r requirements.txt
  1. Create the book
quarto render
  1. Open the book in your browser (open the _book/index.html file).


📝 Citation

This repository has been archived on Zenodo and can be cited as:

Heather, A., Monks, T., & Harper, A. (2024). STARS Work Package 1 Summary. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14267268.

If you wish to cite this repository on GitHub, please refer to the citation file CITATION.cff, and the auto-generated alternatives citation_apalike.apa and citation_bibtex.bib. Authors:

Member ORCID GitHub
Amy Heather ORCID: Heather https://github.com/amyheather
Thomas Monks ORCID: Monks https://github.com/TomMonks
Alison Harper ORCID: Harper https://github.com/AliHarp


💰 Funding

This project is supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number MR/Z503915/1].

About

Summary of the eight computational reproducibility assessments conducted as part of STARS Work Package 1. These assessed discrete-event simulation papers with models in Python and R.

Resources

License

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Packages

No packages published