ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020
Perspective: Towards Automated Tracking of Content and Evidence Appraisal of Nutrition Research.
Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robust recommendations for healthy diets and nutrition require careful synthesis of available evidence. Given the increasing volume of research articles generated, the retrieval and synthesis of evidence are increasingly becoming laborious and time-consuming. Information technology could help to reduce workload for humans. To guide supervised learning however, human identification of key study characteristics is necessary. Reporting guidelines recommend that authors include essential content in articles and could generate manually labeled training data for automated evidence retrieval and synthesis. Here, we present a semiautomated approach to annotate, link, and track the content of nutrition research manuscripts. We used the STROBE extension for nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut) reporting guidelines to manually annotate a sample of 15 articles and converted the semantic information into linked data in a Neo4j graph database through an automated process. Six summary statistics were computed to estimate the reporting completeness of the articles. The content structure, presence of essential study characteristics as well as the reporting completeness of the articles are visualized automatically from the graph database. The archived linked data are interoperable through their annotations and relations. A graph database with linked data on essential study characteristics can enable Natural Language Processing in nutrition.
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.