Mining Early Life Risk and Resiliency Factors and Their Influences in Human Populations from PubMed: A Machine Learning Approach to Discover DOHaD Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) framework aims to understand how early life exposures shape lifecycle health. To date, no comprehensive list of these exposures and their interactions has been developed, which limits our ability to predict trajectories of risk and resiliency in humans. To address this gap, we developed a model that uses text-mining, machine learning, and natural language processing approaches to automate search, data extraction, and content analysis from DOHaD-related research articles available in PubMed. Our first model captured 2469 articles, which were subsequently categorised into topics based on word frequencies within the titles and abstracts. A manual screening validated 848 of these as relevant, which were used to develop a revised model that finally captured 2098 articles that largely fell under the most prominently researched domains related to our specific DOHaD focus. The articles were clustered according to latent topic extraction, and 23 experts in the field independently labelled the perceived topics. Consensus analysis on this labelling yielded mostly from fair to substantial agreement, which demonstrates that automated models can be developed to successfully retrieve and classify research literature, as a first step to gather evidence related to DOHaD risk and resilience factors that influence later life human health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".