ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2020
Exploring Novel Computable Knowledge in Structured Drug Product Labels.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2020. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper introduces a database derived from Structured Product Labels (SPLs). SPLs are legally mandated snapshots containing information on all drugs released to market in the United States. Since publication is not required for pre-trial findings, we hypothesize that SPLs may contain knowledge absent in the literature, and hence "novel." SemMedDB is an existing database of computable knowledge derived from the literature. If SPL content could be similarly transformed, novel clinically relevant assertions in the SPLs could be identified through comparison with SemMedDB. After we derive a database (containing 4,297,481 assertions), we compare the extracted content with SemMedDB for recent FDA drug approvals. We find that novelty between the SPLs and the literature is nuanced, due to the redundancy of SPLs. Highlighting areas for improvement and future work, we conclude that SPLs contain a wealth of novel knowledge relevant to research and complementary to the literature.
Identifiers
32477661PMC7233092What 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.