The FAIR database: facilitating access to public health research literature.

IF 3.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JAMIA Open Pub Date : 2024-12-13 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae139
Zhixue Zhao, James Thomas, Gregory Kell, Claire Stansfield, Mark Clowes, Sergio Graziosi, Jeff Brunton, Iain James Marshall, Mark Stevenson
{"title":"The FAIR database: facilitating access to public health research literature.","authors":"Zhixue Zhao, James Thomas, Gregory Kell, Claire Stansfield, Mark Clowes, Sergio Graziosi, Jeff Brunton, Iain James Marshall, Mark Stevenson","doi":"10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In public health, access to research literature is critical to informing decision-making and to identify knowledge gaps. However, identifying relevant research is not a straightforward task since public health interventions are often complex, can have positive and negative impacts on health inequalities and are applied in diverse and rapidly evolving settings. We developed a \"living\" database of public health research literature to facilitate access to this information using Natural Language Processing tools.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Classifiers were identified to identify the study design (eg, cohort study or clinical trial) and relationship to factors that may be relevant to inequalities using the PROGRESS-Plus classification scheme. Training data were obtained from existing MEDLINE labels and from a set of systematic reviews in which studies were annotated with PROGRESS-Plus categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evaluation of the classifiers showed that the study type classifier achieved average precision and recall of 0.803 and 0.930, respectively. The PROGRESS-Plus classification proved more challenging with average precision and recall of 0.608 and 0.534. The FAIR database uses information provided by these classifiers to facilitate access to inequality-related public health literature.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Previous work on automation of evidence synthesis has focused on clinical areas rather than public health, despite the need being arguably greater.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The development of the FAIR database demonstrates that it is possible to create a publicly accessible and regularly updated database of public health research literature focused on inequalities. The database is freely available from https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/eppi-vis/Fair.</p><p><strong>Netscc id number: </strong>NIHR133603.</p>","PeriodicalId":36278,"journal":{"name":"JAMIA Open","volume":"7 4","pages":"ooae139"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11641844/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMIA Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: In public health, access to research literature is critical to informing decision-making and to identify knowledge gaps. However, identifying relevant research is not a straightforward task since public health interventions are often complex, can have positive and negative impacts on health inequalities and are applied in diverse and rapidly evolving settings. We developed a "living" database of public health research literature to facilitate access to this information using Natural Language Processing tools.

Materials and methods: Classifiers were identified to identify the study design (eg, cohort study or clinical trial) and relationship to factors that may be relevant to inequalities using the PROGRESS-Plus classification scheme. Training data were obtained from existing MEDLINE labels and from a set of systematic reviews in which studies were annotated with PROGRESS-Plus categories.

Results: Evaluation of the classifiers showed that the study type classifier achieved average precision and recall of 0.803 and 0.930, respectively. The PROGRESS-Plus classification proved more challenging with average precision and recall of 0.608 and 0.534. The FAIR database uses information provided by these classifiers to facilitate access to inequality-related public health literature.

Discussion: Previous work on automation of evidence synthesis has focused on clinical areas rather than public health, despite the need being arguably greater.

Conclusion: The development of the FAIR database demonstrates that it is possible to create a publicly accessible and regularly updated database of public health research literature focused on inequalities. The database is freely available from https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/eppi-vis/Fair.

Netscc id number: NIHR133603.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
FAIR 数据库:为获取公共卫生研究文献提供便利。
目标:在公共卫生领域,获取研究文献对于为决策提供信息和确定知识差距至关重要。然而,确定相关的研究并不是一项简单的任务,因为公共卫生干预措施往往很复杂,可能对健康不平等产生积极和消极的影响,并适用于各种迅速变化的环境。我们开发了一个公共卫生研究文献的“活”数据库,以方便使用自然语言处理工具访问这些信息。材料和方法:使用PROGRESS-Plus分类方案,确定分类器以确定研究设计(如队列研究或临床试验)及其与可能与不平等相关的因素的关系。训练数据来自现有的MEDLINE标签和一组系统综述,其中的研究标注了PROGRESS-Plus类别。结果:对分类器的评价表明,研究型分类器的平均准确率和召回率分别为0.803和0.930。PROGRESS-Plus分类更具挑战性,平均准确率和召回率分别为0.608和0.534。FAIR数据库利用这些分类器提供的信息,方便查阅与不平等有关的公共卫生文献。讨论:先前关于证据合成自动化的工作侧重于临床领域,而不是公共卫生领域,尽管可以说需要更大。结论:FAIR数据库的开发表明,可以创建一个可公开访问并定期更新的以不平等为重点的公共卫生研究文献数据库。该数据库可免费从https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/eppi-vis/Fair.Netscc获取,id号:NIHR133603。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMIA Open
JAMIA Open Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
102
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pragmatic approaches for studying workflow in health informatics. Development and evaluation of machine learning models for the detection of emergency department patients with opioid misuse from clinical notes. Providing routine digital recordings of clinic visits to patients: a multiple-case study of three settings in the U.S. Understanding data differences across the ENACT federated research network. Detecting stigmatizing language with large language models: mind the settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1