ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
A search-based geographic metadata curation pipeline to refine sequencing institution information and support public health.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Medical education and artificial intelligence: perspectives and ethical challenges].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025Pooled it
- Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in public health: a systematic review on technological efficacy, ethical dilemmas, and governance pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Metappuccino: large language model-driven reconstruction of sequence read archive metadata for cancer research.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Toward AI foundation models for epidemics: Promise, challenges, and paths forward.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive (SRA) has amassed a vast reservoir of genetic data since its inception in 2007. These public data hold immense potential for supporting pathogen surveillance and control. However, the lack of standardized metadata and inconsistent submission practices in SRA may impede the data's utility in public health. Methods: To address this issue, we introduce the Search-based Geographic Metadata Curation (SGMC) pipeline. SGMC utilized Python and web scraping to extract geographic data of sequencing institutions from NCBI SRA in the Cloud and its website. It then harnessed ChatGPT to refine the sequencing institution and location assignments. To illustrate the pipeline's utility, we examined the geographic distribution of the sequencing institutions and their countries relevant to polio eradication and categorized them. Results: SGMC successfully identified 7,649 sequencing institutions and their global locations from a random selection of 2,321,044 SRA accessions. These institutions were distributed across 97 countries, with strong representation in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. However, there was a lack of data from African, Central Asian, and Central American countries, indicating potential disparities in sequencing capabilities. Comparison with manually curated data for U.S. institutions reveals SGMC's accuracy rates of 94.8% for institutions, 93.1% for countries, and 74.5% for geographic coordinates. Conclusion: SGMC may represent a novel approach using a generative AI model to enhance geographic data (country and institution assignments) for large numbers of samples within SRA datasets. This information can be utilized to bolster public health endeavors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.