ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of a text-mining application for the rapid analysis of free-text wildlife necropsy reports.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to efficiently derive insights from wildlife necropsy data is essential for advancing conservation and One Health objectives, yet close reading remains the mainstay of knowledge retrieval from ubiquitous free-text clinical data. This time-consuming process poses a barrier to the efficient utilisation of such valuable resources. This study evaluates part of a bespoke text-mining application, DEE (Describe, Explore, Examine), designed for extracting insights from free-text necropsy reports housed in Aotearoa New Zealand's Wildbase Pathology Register. A pilot test involving nine veterinary professionals assessed DEE's ability to quantify the occurrence of four clinicopathologic findings (external oiling, trauma, diphtheritic stomatitis, and starvation) across two species datasets by comparison to manual review. Performance metrics-recall, precision, and F1-score-were calculated and analysed alongside tester-driven misclassification patterns. Findings reveal that while DEE (and the principals underlying its function) offers time-efficient data retrieval, its performance is influenced by search term selection and the breadth of vocabulary which may describe a clinicopathologic finding. Those findings characterized by limited terminological variance, such as external oiling, yielded the highest performance scores and the most consistency across application testers. Mean F1-scores across all tested findings and application testers was 0.63-0.93. Results highlight the utility and limitations of term-based text-mining approaches and suggests that enhancements to automatically capture this terminological variance may be necessary for broader implementation. This pilot study highlights the potential of relatively simple, rule-based text-mining approaches to derive insights natural language wildlife data in the support of One Health goals.
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.