ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2024
Standardizing Extracted Data Using Automated Application of Controlled Vocabularies.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- De-risking seizure liability: integrating adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), new approach methodologies (NAMs), and in silico approaches while highlighting knowledge gaps.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence (AI)-it's the end of the tox as we know it (and I feel fine).Archives of toxicology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtraction of toxicological end points from primary sources is a central component of systematic reviews and human health risk assessments. To ensure optimal use of these data, consistent language should be used for end point descriptions. However, primary source language describing treatment-related end points can vary greatly, resulting in large labor efforts to manually standardize extractions before data are fit for use.
objectivesTo minimize these labor efforts, we applied an augmented intelligence approach and developed automated tools to support standardization of extracted information via application of preexisting controlled vocabularies.
methodsWe created and applied a harmonized controlled vocabulary crosswalk, consisting of Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) codes, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) DevTox harmonized terms, and The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) end point vocabularies, to roughly 34,000 extractions from prenatal developmental toxicology studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and 6,400 extractions from European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) prenatal developmental toxicology studies, all recorded based on the original study report language.
resultsWe automatically applied standardized controlled vocabulary terms to 75% of the NTP extracted end points and 57% of the ECHA extracted end points. Of all the standardized extracted end points, about half (51%) required manual review for potential extraneous matches or inaccuracies. Extracted end points that were not mapped to standardized terms tended to be too general or required human logic to find a good match. We estimate that this augmented intelligence approach saved DISCUSSION: Augmenting manual efforts with automation tools increased the efficiency of producing a findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) dataset of regulatory guideline studies. This open-source approach can be readily applied to other legacy developmental toxicology datasets, and the code design is customizable for other study types. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13215.
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.