Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37739960›Full record

ArticleScientific data2023

Automated Construction of a Photocatalysis Dataset for Water-Splitting Applications.

Taketomo Isazawa, Jacqueline M Cole

Abstract readDataset
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Data-Driven Materials Science for Energy-Sustainable Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. High-Throughput Photocatalysis for Generating Reliable Datasets Analyzed by Machine Learning.Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

2 authors.

Taketomo IsazawaCavendish Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Cambridge, J. J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0475-403X
Jacqueline M ColeCavendish Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Cambridge, J. J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK. jmc61@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1552-8743

Funding

RCUK | Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) Fellowship support from the ISIS Neutron and Muon SourceRoyal Academy of Engineering RCSRF1819\7\10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present an automatically generated dataset of 15,755 records that were extracted from 47,357 papers. These records contain water-splitting activity in the presence of certain photocatalysts, along with additional information about the chemical reaction conditions under which this activity was recorded. These conditions include any co-catalysts and additives that were present during water splitting, the length of time for which the photocatalytic experiment was conducted, and the type of light source used, including its wavelength. Despite the text extraction of such a wide range of chemical reaction attributes, the dataset afforded good precision (71.2%) and recall (36.3%). These figures-of-merit were calculated based on a random sample of open-access papers from the corpus. Mining such a complex set of attributes required the development of novel techniques in knowledge extraction and interdependency resolution, leveraging inter- and intra-sentence relations, which are also described in this paper. We present a new version (version 2.2) of the chemistry-aware text-mining toolkit ChemDataExtractor, in which these new techniques are included.

Identifiers

PMID37739960
PMCPMC10517137

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.