ArticlePloS one2024
STEED: A data mining tool for automated extraction of experimental parameters and risk of bias items from in vivo publications.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which experimental factors govern successful animal-to-human translation in multiple sclerosis drug development? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EBioMedicine · 2024Pooled it
- Automated tools for evidence quality assessment: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
methodsSystematic reviews, i.e., research summaries that address focused questions in a structured and reproducible manner, are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine and research. However, certain steps in systematic reviews, such as data extraction, are labour-intensive, which hampers their feasibility, especially with the rapidly expanding body of biomedical literature. To bridge this gap, we aimed to develop a data mining tool in the R programming environment to automate data extraction from neuroscience in vivo publications. The function was trained on a literature corpus (n = 45 publications) of animal motor neuron disease studies and tested in two validation corpora (motor neuron diseases, n = 31 publications; multiple sclerosis, n = 244 publications).
resultsOur data mining tool, STEED (STructured Extraction of Experimental Data), successfully extracted key experimental parameters such as animal models and species, as well as risk of bias items like randomization or blinding, from in vivo studies. Sensitivity and specificity were over 85% and 80%, respectively, for most items in both validation corpora. Accuracy and F1-score were above 90% and 0.9 for most items in the validation corpora, respectively. Time savings were above 99%.
conclusionsOur text mining tool, STEED, can extract key experimental parameters and risk of bias items from the neuroscience in vivo literature. This enables the tool's deployment for probing a field in a research improvement context or replacing one human reader during data extraction, resulting in substantial time savings and contributing towards the automation of systematic reviews.
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.