ArticlePloS one2026
The silence of the labs: Ethical oversight in metabolomics research.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ethical oversight and transparent reporting are essential for ensuring accountability and participant protection in biomedical research. However, despite the rapid expansion of human metabolomics, the consistency of ethical reporting in this field remains unclear. Here, we introduce MinEth, a benchmark corpus and transformer-based framework for detecting ethics-related statements in metabolomics publications. The corpus comprises 120 full-text research articles annotated for key ethical categories, including approval mentions, institutional review boards, and approval identifiers. Using this resource, we fine-tuned and evaluated several transformer architectures-BERT, RoBERTa, SciBERT, and DeBERTa-v3-for automated classification of ethical statements. Across 20 independent fine-tuning runs using identical data partitions, SciBERT achieved the highest overall ethics macro-F1 (0.614 ± 0.111) and significantly exceeded the other evaluated architectures after Holm correction. DeBERTa-v3 achieved the highest mean F1 for ethics approval identifiers (0.538 ± 0.232), although it did not significantly outperform all competing models. Annotation reliability was substantial (Cohen's κ = 0.84), confirming the robustness of the labeling scheme. Together, these results show that transformer-based language models can identify ethics-related reporting with high sensitivity and strong ranking performance, although F1-score and precision vary across architectures, target categories, and random seeds. MinEth provides an open, reproducible resource for advancing transparency, governance, and machine-readable ethics in metabolomics research.
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.