4.7 Article

Systematic Organization of COVID-19 Data Supported by the Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.638605

关键词

adverse outcome pathways; COVID-19; systematic organization; interdisciplinarity; mechanisms; data integration

资金

  1. European Commission's Exploratory Research project CIAO
  2. Funding Program of strategic grants for COVID-19 research at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP) offer structured frameworks for organizing research data and knowledge systematically across disciplines related to human health. The COVID-19 pandemic has attracted worldwide scientific engagement, leading to the initiation of projects like CIAO to develop AOPs for COVID-19, aiming to improve interpretation and efficient application of scientific understanding on the pandemic.
Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP) provide structured frameworks for the systematic organization of research data and knowledge. The AOP framework follows a set of key principles that allow for broad application across diverse disciplines related to human health, including toxicology, pharmacology, virology and medical research. The COVID-19 pandemic engages a great number of scientists world-wide and data is increasing with exponential speed. Diligent data management strategies are employed but approaches for systematically organizing the data-derived information and knowledge are lacking. We believe AOPs can play an important role in improving interpretation and efficient application of scientific understanding of COVID-19. Here, we outline a newly initiated effort, the CIAO project (https://www.ciao-covid.net/), to streamline collaboration between scientists across the world toward development of AOPs for COVID-19, and describe the overarching aims of the effort, as well as the expected outcomes and research support that they will provide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据