ArticleApplied sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Life Cycle Data Interoperability Improvements through Implementation of the Federal LCA Commons Elementary Flow List.
Article in Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As a fundamental component of data for life cycle assessment models, elementary flows have been demonstrated to be a key requirement of life cycle assessment data interoperability. However, existing elementary flow lists have been found to lack sufficient structure to enable improved interoperability between life cycle data sources. The Federal Life Cycle Assessment Commons Elementary Flow List provides a novel framework and structure for elementary flows, but the actual improvement this list provides to the interoperability of life cycle data has not been tested. The interoperability of ten elementary flow lists, two life cycle assessment databases, three life cycle impact assessment methods, and five life cycle assessment software sources is assessed with and without use of the Federal Life Cycle Assessment Commons Elementary Flow List as an intermediary in flow mapping. This analysis showed that only 25% of comparisons between these sources resulted in greater than 50% of flows being capable of automatic name-to-name matching between lists. This indicates that there is a low level of interoperability when using sources with their original elementary flow nomenclature, and elementary flow mapping is required to use these sources in combination. The mapping capabilities of the Federal Life Cycle Assessment Commons Elementary Flow List to sources were reviewed and revealed a notable increase in name-to-name matches. Overall, this novel framework is found to increase life cycle data source interoperability.
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.