Difference between revisions of "Team:Michigan Software/Measurement"

Line 14: Line 14:
 
       </header>
 
       </header>
 
       <div class="top-buffer container-fluid">
 
       <div class="top-buffer container-fluid">
−
        <div class="col-xs-1"></div>
+
        <div class="col-xs-1"></div>
 
         <div class="col-xs-10">
 
         <div class="col-xs-10">
−
             <br>
+
             <h2 class="grey-text heading-weight" align = "center">ProtoMetrics</h2>
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <p>
+
−
            <h1 class="grey-text heading-weight" align = "center">Background</h1>
+
−
            <p>
+
−
              <br>
+
 
             <div class="row" style="border-bottom:thin solid;"></div>
 
             <div class="row" style="border-bottom:thin solid;"></div>
 
             <br>
 
             <br>
−
            <br>
+
             <p id = "doubleSpace" class="p-font grey-text">
−
             <p id = "doubleSpace" class="p-font grey-text">Two years ago the Michigan Software 2014 team began development
+
                &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ProtoCat is meant to enable lab researchers to get feedback on their lab procedures; in order to improve efficiency or gather feedback. But how can they quantify which version of a protocol is better? What if a researcher wants to gather feedback about a specific step, or specific product? Ask for the calibration of the equipment that other people are using? And even if they can get it in the comments, how will they get that information in a readily accessible and usable form? This need gave rise to ProtoMetrics, our way to allow researchers to get quantitative metrics on their protocols.
−
              of ProtoCat 1.0. Like many innovative ideas, ProtoCat began because of a problem.
+
−
              <a class="a-over" href="https://peerj.com/articles/148">Studies</a> have estimated
+
−
              that only 10-25% of published scientific results are reproducible.  A 2014 survey conducted
+
−
              by the Michigan Software team confirmed that the repeatability problem exists in synthetic
+
−
              biology, with every scientist surveyed reporting prior struggles with replicating protocols.
+
−
              The majority of these scientists indicated unclear language and missing steps are the greatest
+
−
              contributors to the irreproducibility of synthetic biology protocols. A <a class="a-over"
+
−
                  href="https://2015.igem.org/Team:Michigan_Software/Outreach">second study</a> conducted by last
+
−
              year's Michigan Software team only further confirmed the sentiments of the first study. These
+
−
              issues are what ProtoCat has been designed to solve.
+
−
            </p>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <p>
+
−
            <h1 class="grey-text heading-weight" align = "center">Solution</h1>
+
−
            </p>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <div class="row" style="border-bottom:thin solid;"></div>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <p id = "doubleSpace" class="p-font grey-text">Every respondent of the second survey indicated that they
+
−
              would use a database to browse and download protocols, with over 85% indicating that
+
−
              they would upload and maintain their own protocols if such a site existed. ProtoCat 3.0
+
−
              is a free database of crowd sourced protocols designed to make existing protocols more
+
−
              repeatable and enable more accurate computational models of biological systems. We believe
+
−
              this can most efficiently be accomplished with a commitment to open source protocols and a
+
−
              broader more active community of digital troubleshooters. ProtoCat 3.0 works to establish
+
−
              such a community by giving anyone with an internet connection or smartphone access to a
+
−
              repository of synthetic biology protocols collected from all over the world. Additionally,
+
−
              ProtoCat 3.0 encourages the development of higher quality, more repeatable protocols by
+
−
              allowing users to document, rate, review, and edit existing methods.
+
−
            </p>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <p>
+
−
            <h1 class="grey-text heading-weight" align = "center">ProtoCat 4.0</h1>
+
−
            </p>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <div class="row" style="border-bottom:thin solid;"></div>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <br>
+
−
            <p id = "doubleSpace" class="p-font grey-text">ProtoCat 4.0 is optimized for collaboration among users
+
−
              and offers the best user experinece we have developed. We've added features such as threaded comments,  
+
−
              notifications, protocol favoriting, and a new chat system called ProtoChat in this
+
−
              years verions of ProtoCat. Now users can communicate through commenting and chatting
+
−
              to make improvements on existing protocols or favorite one they like to quickly relocate
+
−
              it. ProtoCat also recieved a password recover system, notifications, and a better search
+
−
              algorithm to search more fields of a protocol. In addition, users can now create drafts
+
−
              of a protocol which allows them to start and finish a new protocol at their convienience.
+
−
              These are are all important features that contribute to a better user experience and our
+
−
              best version of ProtoCat.
+
 
             </p>
 
             </p>
−
        </div>
+
<p id = "doubleSpace" class="p-font grey-text">
−
        <br>
+
                &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ProtoMetrics allows users to specify three types of questions: Text, Numeric, or Polls. Text and Numeric are relatively straightforward; the former asks for a text response (ex: describe the resulting solution), whereas the latter is for strictly numeric responses (ex: How many grams of product were you able to produce?). Polls allow for a respondent to choose from a selection of responses, which can be used for specific equipment calibration. Once the users have submitted the responses, the publisher of the protocol can download the results in a Comma Seperated Value (csv) file for easy import into Excel, MATLAB, or a similar analysis too.
−
        <br>
+
</p>
−
        <br>
+
−
        <br>
+
 
       </div>
 
       </div>
 
       <br>
 
       <br>

Revision as of 04:26, 1 November 2017

Measurement

ProtoMetrics


     ProtoCat is meant to enable lab researchers to get feedback on their lab procedures; in order to improve efficiency or gather feedback. But how can they quantify which version of a protocol is better? What if a researcher wants to gather feedback about a specific step, or specific product? Ask for the calibration of the equipment that other people are using? And even if they can get it in the comments, how will they get that information in a readily accessible and usable form? This need gave rise to ProtoMetrics, our way to allow researchers to get quantitative metrics on their protocols.

     ProtoMetrics allows users to specify three types of questions: Text, Numeric, or Polls. Text and Numeric are relatively straightforward; the former asks for a text response (ex: describe the resulting solution), whereas the latter is for strictly numeric responses (ex: How many grams of product were you able to produce?). Polls allow for a respondent to choose from a selection of responses, which can be used for specific equipment calibration. Once the users have submitted the responses, the publisher of the protocol can download the results in a Comma Seperated Value (csv) file for easy import into Excel, MATLAB, or a similar analysis too.