ArticlePloS one2021
Using semantics to scale up evidence-based chemical risk-assessments.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe manual processes used for risk assessments are not scaling to the amount of data available. Although automated approaches appear promising, they must be transparent in a public policy setting.
objectiveOur goal is to create an automated approach that moves beyond retrieval to the extraction step of the information synthesis process, where evidence is characterized as supporting, refuting, or neutral with respect to a given outcome.
methodsWe combine knowledge resources and natural language processing to resolve coordinated ellipses and thus avoid surface level differences between concepts in an ontology and outcomes in an abstract. As with a systematic review, the search criterion, and inclusion and exclusion criterion are explicit.
resultsThe system scales to 482K abstracts on 27 chemicals. Results for three endpoints that are critical for cancer risk assessments show that refuting evidence (where the outcome decreased) was higher for cell proliferation (45.9%), and general cell changes (37.7%) than for cell death (25.0%). Moreover, cell death was the only end point where supporting claims were the majority (61.3%). If the number of abstracts that measure an outcome was used as a proxy for association there would be a stronger association with cell proliferation than cell death (20/27 chemicals). However, if the amount of supporting evidence was used (where the outcome increased) the conclusion would change for 21/27 chemicals (20 from proliferation to death and 1 from death to proliferation).
conclusionsWe provide decision makers with a visual representation of supporting, neutral, and refuting evidence whilst maintaining the reproducibility and transparency needed for public policy. Our findings show that results from the retrieval step where the number of abstracts that measure an outcome are reported can be misleading if not accompanied with results from the extraction step where the directionality of the outcome is established.
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.