Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38628964›Full record

ArticleiScience2024

The carbon footprint of predicting CO

Vadim Korolev, Artem Mitrofanov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vadim KorolevDepartment of Chemistry, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Artem MitrofanovDepartment of Chemistry, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Lomonosov Moscow State University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While artificial intelligence drives remarkable progress in natural sciences, its broader societal implications are mostly disregarded. In this study, we evaluate environmental impacts of deep learning in materials science through extensive benchmarking. In particular, a set of diverse neural networks is trained for a given supervised learning task to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during training and inference phases. A chronological perspective showed diminishing returns, manifesting themselves as a 28% decrease in mean absolute error and nearly a 15,000% increase in the carbon footprint of model training in 2016-2022. By means of up-to-date graphics processing units, it is possible to partially offset the immense growth of GHG emissions. Nonetheless, the practice of employing energy-efficient hardware is overlooked by the materials informatics community, as follows from a literature analysis in the field. On the basis of our findings, we encourage researchers to report GHG emissions together with standard performance metrics.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsApplied sciencesGlobal carbon cycle

Identifiers

PMID38628964
PMCPMC11019266
OpenAlexW4393320937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.