Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35003576›Full record

ReviewChemical science2021

Automation isn't automatic.

Melodie Christensen, Lars P E Yunker, Parisa Shiri, Tara Zepel, Paloma L Prieto, Shad Grunert, Finn Bork, Jason E Hein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Programmable Microwaveable Chemistry in the Chemputer.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026
    Article
  6. Utilizing Similarity Measures to Map Chemical Reactivity.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Steering towards safe self-driving laboratories.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2025
    Review
  11. Accelerated Porosity Screening Using a Multichannel Colorimetric Array.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Melodie ChristensenDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-9493
Lars P E YunkerDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.
Parisa ShiriDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.
Tara ZepelDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.
Paloma L PrietoDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7700-2085
Shad GrunertDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.
Finn BorkDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.
Jason E HeinDepartment of Chemistry, University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Canada jhein@chem.ubc.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4345-3005

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automation has become an increasingly popular tool for synthetic chemists over the past decade. Recent advances in robotics and computer science have led to the emergence of automated systems that execute common laboratory procedures including parallel synthesis, reaction discovery, reaction optimization, time course studies, and crystallization development. While such systems offer many potential benefits, their implementation is rarely automatic due to the highly specialized nature of synthetic procedures. Each reaction category requires careful execution of a particular sequence of steps, the specifics of which change with different conditions and chemical systems. Careful assessment of these critical procedural requirements and identification of the tools suitable for effective experimental execution are key to developing effective automation workflows. Even then, it is often difficult to get all the components of an automated system integrated and operational. Data flows and specialized equipment present yet another level of challenge. Unfortunately, the pain points and process of implementing automated systems are often not shared or remain buried deep in the SI. This perspective provides an overview of the current state of automation of synthetic chemistry at the benchtop scale with a particular emphasis on core considerations and the ensuing challenges of deploying a system. Importantly, we aim to reframe automation as decidedly not automatic but rather an iterative process that involves a series of careful decisions (both human and computational) and constant adjustment.

Identifiers

PMID35003576
PMCPMC8654080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.