ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2024
The changing landscape of text mining: a review of approaches for ecology and evolution.
Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Building phenotypic character matrices for phylogenetic inference: exploration of 35 years of practice.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Pooled it
- Making floras computable: Audited translation of flora of China as reusable taxonomic knowledge.Plant diversity · 2026Article
- Utilizing large language models to construct a dataset of Württemberg's 19th-century fauna from historical records.PloS one · 2026Article
- New opportunities and challenges for conservation evidence synthesis from advances in natural language processing.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Article
- From literature to biodiversity data: mining arthropod organismal traits with machine learning.Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In ecology and evolutionary biology, the synthesis and modelling of data from published literature are commonly used to generate insights and test theories across systems. However, the tasks of searching, screening, and extracting data from literature are often arduous. Researchers may manually process hundreds to thousands of articles for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and compiling synthetic datasets. As relevant articles expand to tens or hundreds of thousands, computer-based approaches can increase the efficiency, transparency and reproducibility of literature-based research. Methods available for text mining are rapidly changing owing to developments in machine learning-based language models. We review the growing landscape of approaches, mapping them onto three broad paradigms (frequency-based approaches, traditional Natural Language Processing and deep learning-based language models). This serves as an entry point to learn foundational and cutting-edge concepts, vocabularies, and methods to foster integration of these tools into ecological and evolutionary research. We cover approaches for modelling ecological texts, generating training data, developing custom models and interacting with large language models and discuss challenges and possible solutions to implementing these methods in ecology and evolution.
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.