ArticleF1000Research2024
Translating nanoEHS data using EPA NaKnowBase and the resource description framework.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. 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.
- An Online Nanoinformatics Platform Empowering Computational Modeling of Nanomaterials by Nanostructure Annotations and Machine Learning Toolkits.Nano letters · 2024Article
- NNI Nanoinformatics Conference 2023: Movement Toward a Common Infrastructure for Federal nanoEHS Data Computational Toxicology: Short Communication.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- U. S. federal perspective on critical research issues in nanoEHS.Environmental science. Nano · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The U.S. Federal Government has supported the generation of extensive amounts of nanomaterials and related nano Environmental Health and Safety (nanoEHS) data, there is a need to make these data available to stakeholders. With recent efforts, a need for improved interoperability, translation, and sustainability of Federal nanoEHS data in the United States has been realized. The NaKnowBase (NKB) is a relational database containing experimental results generated by the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) regarding the actions of engineered nanomaterials on environmental and biological systems. Through the interaction of the National Nanotechnology Initiative's Nanotechnology Environmental Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group, and the Database and Informatics Interest Group (DIIG), a U.S. Federal nanoEHS Consortium has been formed. Methods: The primary goal of this consortium is to establish a "common language" for nanoEHS data that aligns with FAIR data standards. A second goal is to overcome nomenclature issues inherent to nanomaterials data, ultimately allowing data sharing and interoperability across the diverse U.S. Federal nanoEHS data compendium, but also in keeping a level of consistency that will allow interoperability with U.S. and European partners. The most recent version of the EPA NaKnowBase (NKB) has been implemented for semantic integration. Computational code has been developed to use each NKB record as input, modify and filter table data, and subsequently output each modified record to a Research Description Framework (RDF). To improve the accuracy and efficiency of this process the EPA has created the OntoSearcher tool. This tool partially automates the ontology mapping process, thereby reducing onerous manual curation. Conclusions: Here we describe the efforts of the US EPA in promoting FAIR data standards for Federal nanoEHS data through semantic integration, as well as in the development of NAMs (computational tools) to facilitate these improvements for nanoEHS data at the Federal partner level.
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.