ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2015
Machines first, humans second: on the importance of algorithmic interpretation of open chemistry data.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- NOCTIS: open-source toolkit that turns reaction data into actionable graph networks.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- How to crack a SMILES: automatic crosschecked chemical structure resolution across multiple services using MoleculeResolver.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- Opportunities and challenges using artificial intelligence in ADME/Tox.Nature materials · 2019Article
- Exploiting machine learning for end-to-end drug discovery and development.Nature materials · 2019Article
- Multiple Machine Learning Comparisons of HIV Cell-based and Reverse Transcriptase Data Sets.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2019Article
- Challenges of Connecting Chemistry to Pharmacology: Perspectives from Curating the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY.ACS omega · 2018Review
- Multi-scale Modeling in Clinical Oncology: Opportunities and Barriers to Success.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2016Review
- The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY in 2016: towards curated quantitative interactions between 1300 protein targets and 6000 ligands.Nucleic acids research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current rise in the use of open lab notebook techniques means that there are an increasing number of scientists who make chemical information freely and openly available to the entire community as a series of micropublications that are released shortly after the conclusion of each experiment. We propose that this trend be accompanied by a thorough examination of data sharing priorities. We argue that the most significant immediate benefactor of open data is in fact chemical algorithms, which are capable of absorbing vast quantities of data, and using it to present concise insights to working chemists, on a scale that could not be achieved by traditional publication methods. Making this goal practically achievable will require a paradigm shift in the way individual scientists translate their data into digital form, since most contemporary methods of data entry are designed for presentation to humans rather than consumption by machine learning algorithms. We discuss some of the complex issues involved in fixing current methods, as well as some of the immediate benefits that can be gained when open data is published correctly using unambiguous machine readable formats. Graphical AbstractLab notebook entries must target both visualisation by scientists and use by machine learning algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.