Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42798979›Full record

ArticleACS omega2026

Table-Based Text Parsing Methods for Polymer Science: A Comparative Study.

Rian J Howe, Jacqueline M Cole

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Rian J HoweRay Dolby Centre, Cavendish Laboratory, Department of Physics, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0US, U.K.
Jacqueline M ColeRay Dolby Centre, Cavendish Laboratory, Department of Physics, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0US, U.K.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1552-8743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42798979
PMCPMC13613381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.