ArticlePloS one2023
A machine learning-enabled open biodata resource inventory from the scientific literature.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Usage and impact of global biodata resources.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Harmfulness Score: A Data-Driven Framework for Ranking Environmental Risks of Microplastics.Macromolecular rapid communications · 2025Article
- Perspectives on tracking data reuse across biodata resources.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern biological research depends on data resources. These resources archive difficult-to-reproduce data and provide added-value aggregation, curation, and analyses. Collectively, they constitute a global infrastructure of biodata resources. While the organic proliferation of biodata resources has enabled incredible research, sustained support for the individual resources that make up this distributed infrastructure is a challenge. The Global Biodata Coalition (GBC) was established by research funders in part to aid in developing sustainable funding strategies for biodata resources. An important component of this work is understanding the scope of the resource infrastructure; how many biodata resources there are, where they are, and how they are supported. Existing registries require self-registration and/or extensive curation, and we sought to develop a method for assembling a global inventory of biodata resources that could be periodically updated with minimal human intervention. The approach we developed identifies biodata resources using open data from the scientific literature. Specifically, we used a machine learning-enabled natural language processing approach to identify biodata resources from titles and abstracts of life sciences publications contained in Europe PMC. Pretrained BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) models were fine-tuned to classify publications as describing a biodata resource or not and to predict the resource name using named entity recognition. To improve the quality of the resulting inventory, low-confidence predictions and potential duplicates were manually reviewed. Further information about the resources were then obtained using article metadata, such as funder and geolocation information. These efforts yielded an inventory of 3112 unique biodata resources based on articles published from 2011-2021. The code was developed to facilitate reuse and includes automated pipelines. All products of this effort are released under permissive licensing, including the biodata resource inventory itself (CC0) and all associated code (BSD/MIT).
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.