ArticleACS omega2026
Table-Based Text Parsing Methods for Polymer Science: A Comparative Study.
Article in ACS omega, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polymer informatics has emerged as an area of interest in the search for more sustainable plastics. Yet, there is a dearth in large, high-quality, polymer-based materials databases that are open-source for the polymer research community. Efforts to curate such databases involve autogenerating large experimental materials databases by mining chemical data from scientific literature, with a specific focus on mining tabular data as these are particularly rich sources of polymeric information. This study compares the performance of two tools in extracting large volumes of tabular data about polymer names and their glass-transition, melting and decomposition temperatures: a table-extraction tool that employs a downstream neural network to resolve polymer names from the table fields, and the table-mining part of the "chemistry-aware" natural-language-processing tool, ChemDataExtractor. We find that both methods afford high precision. The recall of the former is boosted by preserving some of the implicit structure of the source tables, while the latter offers a far wider scope of knowledge extraction from the literature on polymer science.
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.