Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37658458›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2023

Automatic classification of experimental models in biomedical literature to support searching for alternative methods to animal experiments.

Mariana Neves, Antonina Klippert, Fanny Knöspel, Juliane Rudeck, Ailine Stolz, Zsofia Ban, Markus Becker, Kai Diederich, Barbara Grune, Pia Kahnau and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Goals and strategies for the indexing of publication types and study designs.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Publication Type Tagging using Transformer Models and Multi-Label Classification.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Publication Type Tagging using Transformer Models and Multi-Label Classification.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
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

15 authors.

Mariana NevesGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany. Mariana.Lara-Neves@bfr.bund.de.
Antonina KlippertGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Fanny KnöspelGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Juliane RudeckGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Ailine StolzGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Zsofia BanGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Markus BeckerGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Kai DiederichGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Barbara GruneGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Pia KahnauGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Nils OhnesorgeGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Johannes PucherGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Gilbert SchönfelderGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Bettina BertGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Daniel ButzkeGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current animal protection laws require replacement of animal experiments with alternative methods, whenever such methods are suitable to reach the intended scientific objective. However, searching for alternative methods in the scientific literature is a time-consuming task that requires careful screening of an enormously large number of experimental biomedical publications. The identification of potentially relevant methods, e.g. organ or cell culture models, or computer simulations, can be supported with text mining tools specifically built for this purpose. Such tools are trained (or fine tuned) on relevant data sets labeled by human experts. We developed the GoldHamster corpus, composed of 1,600 PubMed (Medline) articles (titles and abstracts), in which we manually identified the used experimental model according to a set of eight labels, namely: "in vivo", "organs", "primary cells", "immortal cell lines", "invertebrates", "humans", "in silico" and "other" (models). We recruited 13 annotators with expertise in the biomedical domain and assigned each article to two individuals. Four additional rounds of annotation aimed at improving the quality of the annotations with disagreements in the first round. Furthermore, we conducted various machine learning experiments based on supervised learning to evaluate the corpus for our classification task. We obtained more than 7,000 document-level annotations for the above labels. After the first round of annotation, the inter-annotator agreement (kappa coefficient) varied among labels, and ranged from 0.42 (for "others") to 0.82 (for "invertebrates"), with an overall score of 0.62. All disagreements were resolved in the subsequent rounds of annotation. The best-performing machine learning experiment used the PubMedBERT pre-trained model with fine-tuning to our corpus, which gained an overall f-score of 0.83. We obtained a corpus with high agreement for all labels, and our evaluation demonstrated that our corpus is suitable for training reliable predictive models for automatic classification of biomedical literature according to the used experimental models. Our SMAFIRA - "Smart feature-based interactive" - search tool ( https://smafira.bf3r.de ) will employ this classifier for supporting the retrieval of alternative methods to animal experiments. The corpus is available for download ( https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7152295 ), as well as the source code ( https://github.com/mariananeves/goldhamster ) and the model ( https://huggingface.co/SMAFIRA/goldhamster ).

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimalsData MiningHumansMachine LearningMEDLINEModels, TheoreticalAlternatives to animal experimentsCorpus annotationReplacementText classification

Identifiers

PMID37658458
PMCPMC10472567

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.