Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37705639›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023

Deep learning-based automatic action extraction from structured chemical synthesis procedures.

Mantas Vaškevičius, Jurgita Kapočiūtė-Dzikienė, Arnas Vaškevičius, Liudas Šlepikas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Mantas VaškevičiusDepartment of Applied Informatics, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Jurgita Kapočiūtė-DzikienėDepartment of Applied Informatics, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0002-8402-4549
Arnas VaškevičiusFaculty of Mechanical Engineering and Design, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Liudas ŠlepikasJSC Synhet, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article proposes a methodology that uses machine learning algorithms to extract actions from structured chemical synthesis procedures, thereby bridging the gap between chemistry and natural language processing. The proposed pipeline combines ML algorithms and scripts to extract relevant data from USPTO and EPO patents, which helps transform experimental procedures into structured actions. This pipeline includes two primary tasks: classifying patent paragraphs to select chemical procedures and converting chemical procedure sentences into a structured, simplified format. We employ artificial neural networks such as long short-term memory, bidirectional LSTMs, transformers, and fine-tuned T5. Our results show that the bidirectional LSTM classifier achieved the highest accuracy of 0.939 in the first task, while the Transformer model attained the highest BLEU score of 0.951 in the second task. The developed pipeline enables the creation of a dataset of chemical reactions and their procedures in a structured format, facilitating the application of AI-based approaches to streamline synthetic pathways, predict reaction outcomes, and optimize experimental conditions. Furthermore, the developed pipeline allows for creating a structured dataset of chemical reactions and procedures, making it easier for researchers to access and utilize the valuable information in synthesis procedures.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceData miningData scienceDeep learningMachine learningNatural language processingOrganic chemistrySynthesis proceduresText classificationText generation

Identifiers

PMID37705639
PMCPMC10495970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.