ArticleScientific reports2017
Testing scientific models using Qualitative Reasoning: Application to cellulose hydrolysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tracking of enzymatic biomass deconstruction by fungal secretomes highlights markers of lignocellulose recalcitrance.Biotechnology for biofuels · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the accumulation of scientific information in natural science, even experts can find difficult to keep integrating new piece of information. It is critical to explore modelling solutions able to capture information scattered in publications as a computable representation form. Traditional modelling techniques are important in that regard, but relying on numerical information comes with limitations for integrating results from distinct studies, high-level representations can be more suited. We present an approach to stepwise construct mechanistic explanation from selected scientific papers using the Qualitative Reasoning framework. As a proof of concept, we apply the approach to modelling papers about cellulose hydrolysis mechanism, focusing on the causal explanations for the decreasing of hydrolytic rate. Two explanatory QR models are built to capture classical explanations for the phenomenon. Our results show that none of them provides sufficient explanation for a set of basic experimental observations described in the literature. Combining the two explanations into a third one allowed to get a new and sufficient explanation for the experimental results. In domains where numerical data are scarce and strongly related to the experimental conditions, this approach can aid assessing the conceptual validity of an explanation and support integration of knowledge from different sources.
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.