Next Article in Journal
Impact of Immediate and Delayed Breast Reconstruction on Quality of Life of Breast Cancer Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Big Data, Decision Models, and Public Health
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

A Narrative Literature Review of Natural Language Processing Applied to the Occupational Exposome

Annika M. Schoene
Ioannis Basinas
Martie van Tongeren
2 and
Sophia Ananiadou
Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Department of Health Science, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8544;
Submission received: 31 May 2022 / Revised: 7 July 2022 / Accepted: 11 July 2022 / Published: 13 July 2022


The evolution of the Exposome concept revolutionised the research in exposure assessment and epidemiology by introducing the need for a more holistic approach on the exploration of the relationship between the environment and disease. At the same time, further and more dramatic changes have also occurred on the working environment, adding to the already existing dynamic nature of it. Natural Language Processing (NLP) refers to a collection of methods for identifying, reading, extracting and untimely transforming large collections of language. In this work, we aim to give an overview of how NLP has successfully been applied thus far in Exposome research. Methods: We conduct a literature search on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for scientific articles published between 2011 and 2021. We use both quantitative and qualitative methods to screen papers and provide insights into the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We outline our approach for article selection and provide an overview of our findings. This is followed by a more detailed insight into selected articles. Results: Overall, 6420 articles were screened for the suitability of this review, where we review 37 articles in depth. Finally, we discuss future avenues of research and outline challenges in existing work. Conclusions: Our results show that (i) there has been an increase in articles published that focus on applying NLP to exposure and epidemiology research, (ii) most work uses existing NLP tools and (iii) traditional machine learning is the most popular approach.

1. Introduction

Natural Language Processing is an area of research within Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is concerned with giving computers the ability to understand natural language (spoken and written) in the same way a human could [1]. Knowledge of computational linguistics (rule-based modelling of human language), statistics, machine learning and deep learning are used either individually or combined to achieve the aforementioned goal [2]. The term Exposome was first introduced by [3], who defined an area of research that takes systematic measurements of exposures (e.g., occupational, physical environment or socio-economic factors) that a person is exposed to throughout life (pre-birth until death) and affects their health outcomes [3]. However, the term Exposome itself has not been fully integrated into all areas of exposure research yet, where often the term ‘exposure research’ is used when referring to the same or similar concepts [4]. At the same time, text mining and NLP techniques are increasingly applied in a variety of exposure-related research areas. Whilst there are a variety of surveys and literature reviews in NLP and its various subtasks [5,6,7], there is no review of NLP and text mining techniques used in the field of occupational and environmental exposure research. This review fills that gap by providing a description of existing tools based on NLP and text mining techniques that have been applied in occupational and environmental exposure research. For this, we utilise a hybrid approach combining classical and automatic reviewing methods with RobotAnalyst [8], which is a recently developed web-based software system that combines text mining and machine learning algorithms. Papers published in the PubMed, Scopus and WoS databases are screened and reviewed to answer the following research questions:
  • What are the most common text mining and NLP approaches used in exposure assessment research?
  • What resources are used for this task?
  • What are the most common NLP methods used?
  • What are the main challenges and future directions of research?

2. Review Methodology

In this literature review, a search was conducted in three scientific literature databases. We include articles available in full and peer-reviewed, where our search returned 6420 articles, out of which 5957 were selected for pre-screening after duplicates were removed. In Figure 1, we show the process of selecting for this review, where for each search on the three different platforms (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Sciene), we used the following query terms:
  • (“natural language processing” OR “text mining” OR “text-mining” OR “text and data mining” OR ontology OR lexic* OR corpus OR corpora) AND (exposome OR exposure OR socioexposome OR (“risk factor” AND (“work” OR “occupational” OR “environmental*”)))
Pre-screening was performed as a two-step process. First, to reduce human workload, we utilised RobotAnalyst [8] to identify 998 full papers. RobotAnalyst is a web-based and freely available software system that utilises both text mining and machine learning methods to categorise and rank references for their relevance (Free access to RobotAnalyst can be requested to reproduce this work: (accessed on 2 November 2021). The system uses an iterative classification process which makes decisions based on the abstract for each reference. Next, we manually screened the titles and abstracts of those papers using the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined below. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies relevant to occupational exposure research were provided by two experts in occupational exposure. Based on these criteria, we identified 80 papers that specifically focused on text mining and/or natural language processing in the field of exposure research. Next, the full papers were reviewed for their relevance to occupational exposure and usage of NLP or text mining methods. Finally, 40 copies of the full papers of those were retrieved and reviewed in full, resulting in a total of 37 articles that fulfilled our defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria:
  • Original work;
  • Study exposures concerning humans;
  • Study occupational and/or environmental exposures of humans, such as airborne agents (e.g., particulates or substances and biological agents (viruses)), stressors, psycho-social and physical (e.g., muscle-skeletal) exposures as well as workplace accidents;
  • Have their full texts available;
  • Are written in English;
  • Focus on text mining or natural language processing and their texts containing a method, experiments and result section.
Exclusion criteria:
  • Studied animal or plant exposures;
  • Studied drug, nutrition or dietary exposures on humans;
  • Written in another language than English;
  • Commentaries, opinion papers or editorials.

3. Results

In the following section, we summarise the findings of this literature review, where we focus on the types of resources used, computational methods and existing NLP tools. In Figure 2, we show the number of papers published each year, where we can observe an increase in publications over time. We also categorise each paper in Table 1 based on NLP tools used, resources and computational method. Finally, we give a brief overview of the literature reviews and qualitative research in this area.
There are different types of resources used, where the most common resource is the existing scientific literature (see Figure 3). Other data sources include databases, social media platforms, electronic health records and accident reports (see Table 1).
Computational Methods
Overall, there are four main categories of computational approaches used which include machine learning, knowledge-based approaches, and database creation and fusion approaches. Figure 4 shows the split of computational approaches found in this review.
Existing NLP tools
There are a number of different existing NLP preprocessing tools used (see Figure 5), where NLTK [49] is the most commonly used for preprocessing textual data. Given the vast number of different NLP tools used in other studies, we have summarised the tools as ‘Other’. However, it has to be noted that a large amount of studies did not declare the type of text mining tool that was used in their work.

3.1. Machine Learning Methods

Ref. [9] proposes a contactless clinical decision support system to diagnose patients with COVID-19 and monitor quarantine progression using Electronic Health Records. Relevant keywords are extracted from unstructured text using NLTK, and the results are added to a searchable database. The final steps of this work include the integration of the system with cloud services and visualisation to make results accessible to clinicians. The work by [28] proposes a computational approach of mapping the impact of climate change on global health via scientific literature. A total of 3730 papers are labelled manually and subsequently fed into an SVM (Support Vector Machine) to classify the unlabelled documents into the different label categories. Next, topic modelling is used to analyse and visualise the content of the literature. The authors of [15] propose to use scientific literature on PubMed to assess the impact of environmental exposures from early life using different unsupervised learning methods (e.g., LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation)) to gain insight into the different topics. The work by [29] models the impact of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary) from smoking using Adverse Outcome Pathways generated from the scientific literature. The is collected and filtered from PubMed to create a corpus and then clustered using the text mining approach proposed by [50]. Research by [10] classifies incident reports to improve aviation safety into two categories using an LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory) with attention. A total of 200,000 reports are preprocessed using NLTK, and word vectors are generated using ULMFiT (Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification) [51]. Ref. [12] extracts information from the scientific literature to evaluate the impact of human exposure to electromagnetic fields, where topic modelling is used to generate domain-specific lexicons. Work by [42] develops a computational literature review approach for in utero exposure to environmental pollutants, where they aim to identify multiple chemicals and their health effects and reduce the burden of manual literature reviews. The titles and abstracts of 54,134 papers are clustered using the DoCTER software [16]. The authors of [30] propose a network-based predictive model to assess chemical toxicity for risk assessment of environmental pollutants. The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) database [52] is used, where chemicals were annotated with an identifier to show the structure of it. Work by [13] introduces a supervised machine learning approach to complement a previous manual literature retrieval for the Exposome-Explorer database [53], where an extensive variety of machine learning algorithms are evaluated using Sckit-Learn [54]. Ref. [48] uses multivariable logistic regression to classify the spread of household transmission of COVID-19 in healthcare workers. As part of this work, term-frequency inverse document frequency (tf-idf) matrices are used match confirmed cases by residential address. The authors of [17] use Chinese accident reports for safety risk analysis in the construction industry, where a software called ROST is used to preprocess the documents and perform cluster and network structural analysis. Research conducted by [14] develops a corpus of over 3500 abstracts that were manually annotated by an Exposome expert for chemical exposures according to a taxonomy. The taxonomy is based on 32 nodes and was split into two categories: biomonitoring and exposure routes. Finally, the data were fed into an SVM (Support Vector Machine) to classify unseen documents. The authors of [11] analyse the sentiment of tweets collected based on a specific geolocation (Texas counties along I-20) to determine if there is a link between CVD (cardiovascular disease) rates and factors that may cause or increase the risk included on the tweets. A voting classifier is used to determine the sentiment of each tweet into positive or negative, where an accuracy of 73.69% is achieved. Ref. [31] developed an ensemble classifier, called SOCcer, to map job titles to occupational classification codes (SOC). For this, a variety of publicly available resources were used to match job titles and tasks to the US SOC-2010 code, which resulted in a knowledge base of around 62,000 linked jobs. To train the ensemble classifier, job descriptions from a bladder cancer study were used as training data, whereas an evaluation of the algorithm was conducted on job titles for personal airborne measurements during an inspection. Research conducted by [18] collected data using Twitter’s API for ‘asthma’, and both manual (e.g., expert annotation and evaluation) and automatic analysis (e.g., topic modelling) are conducted to identify health-related tweets. One of the dominant topics identified by experts was environmental influences and references to triggers of asthma. The work by [22] uses text mining to assess chemical health risks, where PubMed abstracts are used to identify the mode of action (MOA) of carcinogens. For this work, they use the previously developed CRAB tool [55], which uses a bag-of-words approach to convert abstracts into vectors. Then, an SVM classifier with Jensen–Shannon divergence (JSD) kernel is trained to categorise the abstracts into a predefined taxonomy. The work by [23] develops a ranking algorithm to automatically recommend scientific abstracts for curation at CTD (Comparative Toxicogenomics Database [56]). This is completed by screening each abstract and assigning a document relevancy score (DRS), where 3583 articles are used from PubMed for this task. To analyse each abstract, a variety of text mining tools and approaches are used, which include ABNER [57], MetaMap [58] and Oscar3 [59] for gene/protein recognition and chemical recognition, respectively. Finally, a ranking algorithm is developed that sorts abstracts for curation relevance. The authors of [24] introduce a new method to classify biomedical documents for curation using the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD). A total of 1059 previously collected articles are annotated for entities (e.g., genes, chemicals, diseases and respective interactions), and manual abstract annotation is performed for chemicals relevant to the CTD. Finally, the documents are classified using a SVM. The authors of [25] use 225 electric power causality accident reports from China to identify factors that contribute to personal injury. TF-IDF is used to obtain the word frequency in a document, and the results are subsequently visualised using word clouds. The results are then used to extract key information on the dangers described in the reports. Our results also show that the majority of papers in this section utilise existing literature or databases to extract new information or classify unseen documents into existing categories. Classification experiments are performed using a wide variety of existing supervised machine learning algorithms (e.g.,: SVM or logistic regression). At the same time, new information is commonly uncovered and visualised using unsupervised learning methods (e.g.,: LSA or PCA). NLTK is a commonly used tool for preprocessing textual data, but there are also other NLP tools utilised that may be more suitable to deal with different languages or domains (e.g., ROST or CRAB).

3.2. Knowledge-Based Methods

Ref. [43] investigates Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP) of pesticide exposure based on scientific literature collected on PubMed. For this, the recently developed AOP-helpFinder [60] is extended and subsequently known as AOP-helpFinder 2. The following properties were added: (i) the tool’s ability to automatically process and screen abstracts from PubMed, (ii) link stressors with a dictionary of events and (iii) calculate scores for both systems based on the position and weighted score for all event types. The tool is then evaluated by applying it to screen for a list of pesticides that have unknown long-term exposure effects on human health. Research conducted by [44] utilises a linguistic analysis of 261 scientific abstracts related to the ‘Exposome’ to gain insight into the current range of exposome research conducted. A literature search was performed, and an analysis was conducted using a combination of Termine [61] and NLTK [49] to extract multi-word terms and compute word frequency counts. The second part of this analysis uses over 500 biomedical ontologies provided at the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to automatically map abstracts to relevant ontologies. This work was subsequently extended by [62], who are using topic modelling and ontology analysis to provide an updated overview of knowledge representation tools relevant to exposure research. The work by [21] creates a new semantic resource for exposures, which is evaluated both in a clinical setting and on scientific literature. The resource contains (i) manual annotations derived from clinical notes and knowledge from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) to find exposome concepts. Ref. [20] use five corpora of epidemiological studies with different exposures and outcomes to extract exposure-related information that can aid systematic reviews and other summaries. In this work, a rule-based system called GATE [63] is used that relies on the development of dictionaries, where a total of 21 dictionaries were manually created with domain-specific exposures and outcomes. Research conducted by [19] uses rule-based patterns to analyse 60 PubMed abstracts in the obesity domain for six semantic concepts (study design, population, exposures, outcomes, covariates and effect size). Fourteen separate dictionaries are created that contain terms related to the previously mentioned six semantic concepts using a variety of tools [64,65]. Research conducted by [27] enhances the existing METLIN Exposome database to include over 950,000 unique small molecules. As part of this work, IBM Watson [66] is utilised, where Watson’s NLP approach is based on both rules (e.g., dictionary) and machine learning. The authors of [40] developed a rule-based SES (socioeconomic status) algorithm ( (accessed on 12 November 2021)) to analyse Electronic Health Records using the Ruby programming language. In this work, the effects of socioeconomic factors on overall health (e.g., mortality, education, occupation) in minorities are used to ensure that these factors will be considered as exposure in future work. In summary, we found that common knowledge sources are dictionaries, lists and ontologies, where sources for this knowledge often are existing literature or clinical notes. Interestingly, there is not one preferred text mining tool used in any of the studies, and therefore, a large variety of different NLP tools are utilised.

3.3. Database Creation and Fusion

One of the most popular databases created is the comparative toxicogenomics database (CTD), which was developed in 2004 and is updated annually [45]. Generally speaking, this resource is made up of three databases, which include (i) a third party database that contains data from external sources (e.g., MeSH), (ii) a manually curated database of data screened by scientists and (iii) a public web application that combines data from the curation database and third party database. The resources’ aim is to provide content that relates chemical exposures with human health to gain a better insight into diseases that are influenced by the environment. Research by [33] created an updated human exposome database for predicting the biotransformation of chemicals by using literature mining to manually identify scientific articles. For this work, PubMed was queried based on several keywords related to the exposome (e.g., human exposome, drinking water, air, and disinfection or combustion by-products), where most selected publications were review articles that contain environmental matrices (e.g., indoor air exposome, dust exposome, or waterborne chemicals). The work by [34] uses the text mining approach proposed by [36] to generate a new database of organic pollutants in China. The database is based on 2799 scientific publications and includes a total of 112,878 records. Research conducted by [46] uses the AOP-helpFinder tool as proposed by [36] to screen a PubMed corpus for exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The authors of [35] utilise text mining in combination with integrative systems biology to support decision making for the usage of BPFs (bisphenol F) in manufacturing and therefore circumvent adverse outcome pathways (AOP). To establish a connection between environmental exposures (e.g., to BPFs) and health effects, a variety of existing literature and databases such as PubMed, ToxCast, CompTox, and AOP-wiki are used. In this work, a previously proposed text mining tool called AOP-help Finder [60] is used to analyse abstracts for links between chemical substances and AOPs. The corpus for this work was developed using both automatic and manual searches. First, an automatic search of PubMed was conducted using the AOP-helpFinder tool to identify links between BPF and AOPs. Then, TOXLINE [67] was searched from the year 2017 for articles that contain BPF and synonyms of BPF in a toxicological context. The authors of [47] present an update of the environmental exposure to the nanomaterials database by using NLP to retrieve information from textual data and integrate it into the database. The first step in this work is to use OpenNLP ( (accessed on 19 November 2021)) to preprocess and prepare a corpus of 10 scientific articles related to environmental risk assessment. An ontology called EXPOSEO ontology is subsequently developed and used to match the extracted information into concepts that can be integrated into the existing database. The work by [36] uses text mining to create a list of all chemicals related to ‘blood-associated chemicals’, which is then used to create a Blood Exposome Database. Several keywords were used to query PubMed, where the results were then checked manually to remove false positives and a phrase exclusion list was created. The final number of literature abstracts found is 1,085,023 ( (accessed on 19 November 2021)) and then linked to chemicals, based on the synonym for a chemical, existing links between PubChem and PubMed and by mining supplement tables for chemical synonyms using R (Code in R: (accessed on 19 November 2021)). As a result, new blood chemicals were discovered in the literature. A similar approach for assessing cancer hazards was used by [68] using the PubMed literature. The work by [69] uses a three-step process to update the comparative toxicogenomics database (CDT) with exposure data from the scientific literature sourced on PubMed. A variety of techniques are used to extract vocabularies, which include but are not limited to MeSH [70], Gene Ontology [71] and NCBI Gene [72]. These techniques extract vocabularies for chemical and anatomy words, disease terms, biological processes and geographic locations, respectively. Finally, the data are integrated into the CDT, creating 49 new tables that contain 239 columns. Research by [37] proposes a new database called the Toxin-Toxin-Target Database (T3DB), which consolidates multi-disciplinary data on toxic compound exposure. A taxonomy of compounds is generated using a classifier to categorise compounds into groups, and then, an ontology of chemical entities is developed. In a nutshell, we find that there is a need for and high usage of databases that hold domain-specific knowledge for exposure research. Furthermore, most databases outlined in this review are generated using literature mining or existing databases, where information commonly retrieved include chemicals, anatomy words, disease terms, biological processes and geographic locations.

3.4. Literature Reviews and Qualitative Research

Ref. [38] conducts a review of existing ontologies relevant to the external exposome research and argues for the future development of semantic standards. This argument is driven by the variation of exposome resources, where differences include but are not limited to variables having the same or similar names but measuring different exposures. The work by [26] produces a systematic literature review on transport-related injury, where the first reviewer used traditional methods and the second reviewer utilised text mining techniques to perform the same review. The text mining portion of this work uses WordStat [73], QDA Miner [74], and literature screening was conducted in Abstrackr [75]. Research by [39] investigates how the public reacted to reports of increased lead levels in school drinking waters. Both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation was performed, where it was found that (i) the majority of tweets were by news agencies and people holding positions in public offices, and (ii) the three most important themes of tweets were information sharing, health concerns and socio-demographic disparities. Overall, we have found that there is a small number of existing reviews that include the use of NLP methods and tools in exposure research. In addition to this, there is also a utilisation of mixed methods to better gauge public opinion on exposure-related health concerns.

4. Discussion

There are a number of challenges remaining in the field of NLP applied to occupational exposure research. In the following section, we outline some challenges and opportunities for future work in this area:
  • Data volume and quality Whilst there has been some use of unsupervised machine learning methods (e.g., clustering via LDA) in the selected studies, a majority use supervised machine learning. One downside of this is that the latter approach requires human annotated data, which usually requires expert knowledge and is therefore a time-consuming and costly process. To overcome this issue, the use of semi-supervised or unsupervised learning methods might be explored, because it requires either significantly less annotated training data or none at all. An example of this is the use of topic modelling techniques to cluster jobs and exposures from the existing literature. Another opportunity lies in using semi-supervised Named Entity Recognition to increase the coverage of annotated literature.
  • Novel deep learning techniques The present studies predominantly utilise traditional machine learning techniques (e.g., SVMs); however, the field has drastically evolved over recent years with more advanced techniques known as deep learning methods producing scaleable and accurate results. This includes but is not limited to transfer learning [76] or adversarial learning [77], which include a variety of neural networks structures or knowledge graphs that have been at the core of NLP research.
    This also includes Transformer-based methods [78] (e.g., large pre-trained language models such as BERT [79]), which have made a significant impact on the field of NLP over recent years and could prove to be useful in NLP for occupational exposure research. This type of deep learning method is based on attention [80], which has been shown to improve results in a variety of other domains that have utilised NLP (e.g., healthcare). These advances could be used to improve tasks such as Named Entity Recognition (NER) [81] or Relation Extraction (RE) [82] in occupational exposure research, which up until this point have relied on traditional machine learning only. Both tasks could prove useful in the context of occupational exposure research to automatically identify key concepts (e.g., types of exposures, jobs or work environments) but also how they relate to one another (e.g., a particular role is in a specific work place). Other advances could be made through the use of unsupervised methods, which thus far have also relied on traditional machine learning only. More recent methods such as Neural Topic Models (NTM) have become increasingly popular for different tasks, including document summarisation and text generation [83] due to their flexibility and capability. These methods could also be applied to occupational exposure research to uncover new topics and concepts at a larger scale or draw new connections between exposures and work environments. Similarly, NTM methods could also be coupled with pre-trained language models to further boost performance and result in more accurate representations of new topics [83].
  • Extrapolating existing research to other domains of exposure research Most of the research explored in this review is specific to a particular type of exposure, databases or enhancement of literature reviews. The domain-specificity and different needs/requirements for each type of exposure make it therefore hard to extrapolate these existing works to other fields, link and scale up existing approaches.

5. Conclusions

In this work, we have manually reviewed 37 papers relevant to NLP applied to occupational exposure research. Our results show that (i) there has been an increase in articles published, (ii) most work uses existing NLP tools, and (iii) traditional machine learning is the most popular approach. Furthermore, we have outlined challenges and opportunities for future research that could further advance the field.

Author Contributions

A.M.S., I.B., M.v.T. and S.A. contributed to the conception and design of the literature review (e.g., selecting keywords). A.M.S. and S.A. retrieved relevant papers and completed pre-screening. I.B. and M.v.T. performed a final screening of the selected papers. A.M.S. wrote the manuscript and I.B., M.v.T. and S.A. provided feedback and corrections on individual sections. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 874703.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


This research was made possible by the support of the EPHOR (Exposome Project for Health and Occupational Research) consortium.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.


The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial Intelligence
AOPAdverse Outcome Pathways
BERTBidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers
CTDComparative Toxicogenomics Database
DRSDocument relevancy score
LDALatent Dirichlet Allocation
LSALatent semantic analysis
LSTMLong Short Term Memory
NERNamed Entity Recognition
NLPNatural Language Processing
NLTKNatural Language Toolkit
NTMNeural topic models
PCAPrincipal component analysis
RERelation Extraction
SVMSupport Vector Machine
TF-IDFfrequency–inverse document frequency
UMLSUnified Medical Language System


  1. Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A. Deep Learning; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Russell, S.; Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wild, C.P. The exposome: From concept to utility. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 41, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Haddad, N.; Andrianou, X.D.; Makris, K.C. A scoping review on the characteristics of human exposome studies. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2019, 5, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kreimeyer, K.; Foster, M.; Pandey, A.; Arya, N.; Halford, G.; Jones, S.F.; Forshee, R.; Walderhaug, M.; Botsis, T. Natural language processing systems for capturing and standardizing unstructured clinical information: A systematic review. J. Biomed. Inform. 2017, 73, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Chowdhury, G.G. Natural language processing. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 51–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Qiu, X.; Sun, T.; Xu, Y.; Shao, Y.; Dai, N.; Huang, X. Pre-trained models for natural language processing: A survey. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2020, 63, 1872–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Przybyła, P.; Brockmeier, A.J.; Kontonatsios, G.; Le Pogam, M.A.; McNaught, J.; von Elm, E.; Nolan, K.; Ananiadou, S. Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study. Res. Synth. Methods 2018, 9, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Balasubramanian, V.; Vivekanandhan, S.; Mahadevan, V. Pandemic tele-smart: A contactless tele-health system for efficient monitoring of remotely located COVID-19 quarantine wards in India using near-field communication and natural language processing system. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2021, 60, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dong, T.; Yang, Q.; Ebadi, N.; Luo, X.R.; Rad, P. Identifying Incident Causal Factors to Improve Aviation Transportation Safety: Proposing a Deep Learning Approach. J. Adv. Transp. 2021, 2021, 5540046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Medina Sada, D.; Mengel, S.; Gittner, L.S.; Khan, H.; Rodriguez, M.A.P.; Vadapalli, R. A Preliminary Investigation with Twitter to Augment CVD Exposome Research. In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE/ACM International Conference on Big Data Computing, Applications and Technologies, Austin, TX, USA, 5–8 December 2017; pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lee, S.W.; Kwon, J.H.; Lee, B.; Kim, E.J. Scientific Literature Information Extraction Using Text Mining Techniques for Human Health Risk Assessment of Electromagnetic Fields. Sens. Mater. 2020, 32, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lamurias, A.; Jesus, S.; Neveu, V.; Salek, R.M.; Couto, F.M. Information Retrieval using Machine Learning for Biomarker Curation in the Exposome-Explorer. bioRxiv 2020, 6, 689264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Larsson, K.; Baker, S.; Silins, I.; Guo, Y.; Stenius, U.; Korhonen, A.; Berglund, M. Text mining for improved exposure assessment. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Tewari, S.; Toledo Margalef, P.; Kareem, A.; Abdul-Hussein, A.; White, M.; Wazana, A.; Davidge, S.T.; Delrieux, C.; Connor, K.L. Mining Early Life Risk and Resiliency Factors and Their Influences in Human Populations from PubMed: A Machine Learning Approach to Discover DOHaD Evidence. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Varghese, A.; Cawley, M.; Hong, T. Supervised clustering for automated document classification and prioritization: A case study using toxicological abstracts. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2018, 38, 398–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, J.; Wang, J.; Xu, N.; Hu, Y.; Cui, C. Importance degree research of safety risk management processes of urban rail transit based on text mining method. Information 2018, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Leroy, G.; Harber, P.; Revere, D. Public sharing of medical advice using social media: An analysis of Twitter. Grey J. (TGJ) 2016, 12, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
  19. Karystianis, G.; Buchan, I.; Nenadic, G. Mining characteristics of epidemiological studies from Medline: A case study in obesity. J. Biomed. Semant. 2014, 5, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Karystianis, G.; Thayer, K.; Wolfe, M.; Tsafnat, G. Evaluation of a rule-based method for epidemiological document classification towards the automation of systematic reviews. J. Biomed. Inform. 2017, 70, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fan, J.w.; Li, J.; Lussier, Y.A. Semantic modeling for exposomics with exploratory evaluation in clinical context. J. Healthc. Eng. 2017, 2017, 3818302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ali, I.; Guo, Y.; Silins, I.; Högberg, J.; Stenius, U.; Korhonen, A. Grouping chemicals for health risk assessment: A text mining-based case study of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Toxicol. Lett. 2016, 241, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Davis, A.P.; Wiegers, T.C.; Johnson, R.J.; Lay, J.M.; Lennon-Hopkins, K.; Saraceni-Richards, C.; Sciaky, D.; Murphy, C.G.; Mattingly, C.J. Text mining effectively scores and ranks the literature for improving chemical-gene-disease curation at the comparative toxicogenomics database. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e58201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Vishnyakova, D.; Pasche, E.; Gobeill, J.; Gaudinat, A.; Lovis, C.; Ruch, P. Classification and prioritization of biomedical literature for the comparative toxicogenomics database. In Proceedings of the MIE, Pisa, Italy, 26–29 August 2012; pp. 210–214. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lu, Y.; Xu, H.; Peterson, N.B.; Dai, Q.; Jiang, M.; Denny, J.C.; Liu, M. Extracting epidemiologic exposure and outcome terms from literature using machine learning approaches. Int. J. Data Min. Bioinform. 2012, 6, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Giummarra, M.J.; Lau, G.; Gabbe, B.J. Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews. Inj. Prev. 2020, 26, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Warth, B.; Spangler, S.; Fang, M.; Johnson, C.H.; Forsberg, E.M.; Granados, A.; Martin, R.L.; Domingo, X.; Huan, T.; Rinehart, D.; et al. Exposing the Exposome with Global Metabolomics and Cognitive Computing. bioRxiv 2017, 145722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Berrang-Ford, L.; Sietsma, A.J.; Callaghan, M.; Minx, J.C.; Scheelbeek, P.F.; Haddaway, N.R.; Haines, A.; Dangour, A.D. Systematic mapping of global research on climate and health: A machine learning review. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e514–e525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Minet, E.; Haswell, L.E.; Corke, S.; Banerjee, A.; Baxter, A.; Verrastro, I.; e Lima, F.D.A.; Jaunky, T.; Santopietro, S.; Breheny, D.; et al. Application of text mining to develop AOP-based mucus hypersecretion genesets and confirmation with in vitro and clinical samples. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Taboureau, O.; El M’Selmi, W.; Audouze, K. Integrative systems toxicology to predict human biological systems affected by exposure to environmental chemicals. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2020, 405, 115210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Russ, D.E.; Ho, K.Y.; Colt, J.S.; Armenti, K.R.; Baris, D.; Chow, W.H.; Davis, F.; Johnson, A.; Purdue, M.P.; Karagas, M.R.; et al. Computer-based coding of free-text job descriptions to efficiently identify occupations in epidemiological studies. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 73, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Semenza, J.C.; Herbst, S.; Rechenburg, A.; Suk, J.E.; Höser, C.; Schreiber, C.; Kistemann, T. Climate change impact assessment of food-and waterborne diseases. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 42, 857–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Zhao, F.; Li, L.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Y.; Keerthisinghe, T.P.; Chow, A.; Dong, T.; Jia, S.; Xing, S.; Warth, B.; et al. Risk-Based Chemical Ranking and Generating a Prioritized Human Exposome Database. Environ. Health Perspect. 2021, 129, 047014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dong, Z.; Fan, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Fan, W.; Wu, F. A Web-Based Database on Exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants in China. Environ. Health Perspect. 2021, 129, 057701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rugard, M.; Coumoul, X.; Carvaillo, J.C.; Barouki, R.; Audouze, K. Deciphering adverse outcome pathway network linked to bisphenol F using text mining and systems toxicology approaches. Toxicol. Sci. 2020, 173, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Barupal, D.K.; Fiehn, O. Generating the blood exposome database using a comprehensive text mining and database fusion approach. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127, 097008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wishart, D.; Arndt, D.; Pon, A.; Sajed, T.; Guo, A.C.; Djoumbou, Y.; Knox, C.; Wilson, M.; Liang, Y.; Grant, J.; et al. T3DB: The toxic exposome database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, D928–D934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Zhang, H.; Hu, H.; Diller, M.; Hogan, W.R.; Prosperi, M.; Guo, Y.; Bian, J. Semantic Standards of External Exposome Data. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ekenga, C.C.; McElwain, C.A.; Sprague, N. Examining public perceptions about lead in school drinking water: A mixed-methods analysis of Twitter response to an environmental health hazard. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Hollister, B.M.; Restrepo, N.A.; Farber-Eger, E.; Crawford, D.C.; Aldrich, M.C.; Non, A. Development and performance of text-mining algorithms to extract socioeconomic status from de-identified electronic health records. In Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2017; World Scientific: Singapore, 2017; pp. 230–241. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hartmann, J.; Wuijts, S.; van der Hoek, J.P.; de Roda Husman, A.M. Use of literature mining for early identification of emerging contaminants in freshwater resources. Environ. Evid. 2019, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Cawley, M.; Beardslee, R.; Beverly, B.; Hotchkiss, A.; Kirrane, E.; Sams II, R.; Varghese, A.; Wignall, J.; Cowden, J. Novel text analytics approach to identify relevant literature for human health risk assessments: A pilot study with health effects of in utero exposures. Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jornod, F.; Rugard, M.; Tamisier, L.; Coumoul, X.; Andersen, H.R.; Barouki, R.; Audouze, K. AOP4EUpest: Mapping of pesticides in adverse outcome pathways using a text mining tool. Bioinformatics 2020, 36, 4379–4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kiossogloua, P.; Bordaa, A.; Graya, K.; Martin-Sancheza, F.; Verspoora, K.; d Lopez-Camposa, G. Characterising the Scope of Exposome Research: A Generalisable Approach; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  45. Davis, A.P.; Grondin, C.J.; Johnson, R.J.; Sciaky, D.; Wiegers, J.; Wiegers, T.C.; Mattingly, C.J. Comparative toxicogenomics database (CTD): Update 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, D1138–D1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zgheib, E.; Kim, M.J.; Jornod, F.; Bernal, K.; Tomkiewicz, C.; Bortoli, S.; Coumoul, X.; Barouki, R.; De Jesus, K.; Grignard, E.; et al. Identification of non-validated endocrine disrupting chemical characterization methods by screening of the literature using artificial intelligence and by database exploration. Environ. Int. 2021, 154, 106574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ayadi, A.; Auffan, M.; Rose, J. Ontology-based NLP information extraction to enrich nanomaterial environmental exposure database. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 176, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schwartz, K.L.; Achonu, C.; Buchan, S.A.; Brown, K.A.; Lee, B.; Whelan, M.; Wu, J.H.; Garber, G. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, household transmission, and lethality of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection among healthcare workers in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0244477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Loper, E.; Bird, S. Nltk: The natural language toolkit. arXiv 2002, preprint. arXiv:cs/0205028. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rani, J.; Shah, A.R.; Ramachandran, S. pubmed. mineR: An R package with text-mining algorithms to analyse PubMed abstracts. J. Biosci. 2015, 40, 671–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Howard, J.; Ruder, S. Transfer Learning over Text Using ULMFiT. In Proceedings of the NIPS, Long Beach, CA, USA, 4–9 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
  52. Christensen, H.E.; Luginbyhl, T.T. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances; Technical Report; Tracor JITCO, Inc.: Rockville, MD, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  53. Neveu, V.; Nicolas, G.; Salek, R.M.; Wishart, D.S.; Scalbert, A. Exposome-Explorer 2.0: An update incorporating candidate dietary biomarkers and dietary associations with cancer risk. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, D908–D912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 2825–2830. [Google Scholar]
  55. Korhonen, A.; Ó Séaghdha, D.; Silins, I.; Sun, L.; Högberg, J.; Stenius, U. Text mining for literature review and knowledge discovery in cancer risk assessment and research. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e33427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Davis, A.P.; Grondin, C.J.; Johnson, R.J.; Sciaky, D.; McMorran, R.; Wiegers, J.; Wiegers, T.C.; Mattingly, C.J. The comparative toxicogenomics database: Update 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D948–D954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Settles, B. ABNER: An open source tool for automatically tagging genes, proteins and other entity names in text. Bioinformatics 2005, 21, 3191–3192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aronson, A.R. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: The MetaMap program. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 3–7 November 2001; American Medical Informatics Association: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2001; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
  59. Corbett, P.; Copestake, A. Cascaded classifiers for confidence-based chemical named entity recognition. BMC Bioinform. 2008, 9, S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Carvaillo, J.C.; Barouki, R.; Coumoul, X.; Audouze, K. Linking bisphenol S to adverse outcome pathways using a combined text mining and systems biology approach. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127, 047005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Ananiadou, S.; Rea, B.; Okazaki, N.; Procter, R.; Thomas, J. Supporting systematic reviews using text mining. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2009, 27, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Lopez-Campos, G.; Kiossoglou, P.; Borda, A.; Hawthorne, C.; Gray, K.; Verspoor, K. Characterizing the Scope of Exposome Research Through Topic Modeling and Ontology Analysis. In MEDINFO 2019: Health and Wellbeing e-Networks for All; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1530–1531. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cunningham, H.; Tablan, V.; Roberts, A.; Bontcheva, K. Getting more out of biomedical documents with GATE’s full lifecycle open source text analytics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2013, 9, e1002854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Nenadic, G.; Ananiadou, S.; McNaught, J. Enhancing automatic term recognition through recognition of variation. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING 2004, Geneva, Switzerland, 23–27 August 2004; pp. 604–610. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cohen, W.W. Minorthird: Methods for Identifying names and Ontological Relations in Text Using Heuristics for Inducing Regularities from Data. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery on the Web, Seattle, WA, USA, 22–25 August 2004. [Google Scholar]
  66. High, R. The era of cognitive systems: An inside look at IBM Watson and how it works. IBM Corp. Redbooks 2012, 1, 16. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schultheisz, R.J. TOXLINE: Evolution of an online interactive bibliographic database. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1981, 32, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Barupal, D.K.; Schubauer-Berigan, M.K.; Korenjak, M.; Zavadil, J.; Guyton, K.Z. Prioritizing cancer hazard assessments for IARC Monographs using an integrated approach of database fusion and text mining. Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Grondin, C.J.; Davis, A.P.; Wiegers, T.C.; King, B.L.; Wiegers, J.A.; Reif, D.M.; Hoppin, J.A.; Mattingly, C.J. Advancing exposure science through chemical data curation and integration in the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 1592–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Coletti, M.H.; Bleich, H.L. Medical subject headings used to search the biomedical literature. J. Am. Med Inform. Assoc. 2001, 8, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Ashburner, M.; Ball, C.A.; Blake, J.A.; Botstein, D.; Butler, H.; Cherry, J.M.; Davis, A.P.; Dolinski, K.; Dwight, S.S.; Eppig, J.T.; et al. Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 2000, 25, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Maglott, D.; Ostell, J.; Pruitt, K.D.; Tatusova, T. Entrez Gene: Gene-centered information at NCBI. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 39, D52–D57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Davi, A.; Haughton, D.; Nasr, N.; Shah, G.; Skaletsky, M.; Spack, R. A review of two text-mining packages: SAS TextMining and WordStat. Am. Stat. 2005, 59, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lewis, R.B.; Maas, S.M. QDA Miner 2.0: Mixed-model qualitative data analysis software. Field Methods 2007, 19, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wallace, B.C.; Small, K.; Brodley, C.E.; Lau, J.; Trikalinos, T.A. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: Abstrackr. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium, Miami, FL, USA, 28–30 January 2012; pp. 819–824. [Google Scholar]
  76. Weiss, K.; Khoshgoftaar, T.M.; Wang, D. A survey of transfer learning. J. Big Data 2016, 3, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Chakraborty, A.; Alam, M.; Dey, V.; Chattopadhyay, A.; Mukhopadhyay, D. Adversarial attacks and defences: A survey. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1810.00069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Singh, S.; Mahmood, A. The NLP cookbook: Modern recipes for transformer based deep learning architectures. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 68675–68702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Devlin, J.; Chang, M.W.; Lee, K.; Toutanova, K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1810.04805. [Google Scholar]
  80. Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A.N.; Kaiser, Ł.; Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017, 30, 5998–6008. [Google Scholar]
  81. Lample, G.; Ballesteros, M.; Subramanian, S.; Kawakami, K.; Dyer, C. Neural architectures for named entity recognition. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1603.01360. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kumar, S. A survey of deep learning methods for relation extraction. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1705.03645. [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhao, H.; Phung, D.; Huynh, V.; Jin, Y.; Du, L.; Buntine, W. Topic modelling meets deep neural networks: A survey. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2103.00498. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Overview of article selection process used in this narrative literature review.
Figure 1. Overview of article selection process used in this narrative literature review.
Ijerph 19 08544 g001
Figure 2. Number of NLP papers applied to occupational exposure research published each year from 2010 to 2021.
Figure 2. Number of NLP papers applied to occupational exposure research published each year from 2010 to 2021.
Ijerph 19 08544 g002
Figure 3. A chart showing the different types of resources used in the selected articles.
Figure 3. A chart showing the different types of resources used in the selected articles.
Ijerph 19 08544 g003
Figure 4. A chart showing the computational methods utilised in the selected articles.
Figure 4. A chart showing the computational methods utilised in the selected articles.
Ijerph 19 08544 g004
Figure 5. A chart showing a summary of the different types of NLP tools in each article.
Figure 5. A chart showing a summary of the different types of NLP tools in each article.
Ijerph 19 08544 g005
Table 1. A categorisation of each paper based on tools used, resources and computational methods.
Table 1. A categorisation of each paper based on tools used, resources and computational methods.
Tool used
Not declared[15,28,29,30,31,32],
Scientific literature[12,15,28,29,41,42],
Existing Database[13,30,35,37,45]
Accident reports[10,17,25]
Computational Method
Machine learning[9,15,28,41],
Knowledge based[19,20,21,43,44]
Database creation and fusion[27,33,34,35,45,46],
Rule-based algorithms[27,40]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schoene, A.M.; Basinas, I.; van Tongeren, M.; Ananiadou, S. A Narrative Literature Review of Natural Language Processing Applied to the Occupational Exposome. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8544.

AMA Style

Schoene AM, Basinas I, van Tongeren M, Ananiadou S. A Narrative Literature Review of Natural Language Processing Applied to the Occupational Exposome. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8544.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schoene, Annika M., Ioannis Basinas, Martie van Tongeren, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2022. "A Narrative Literature Review of Natural Language Processing Applied to the Occupational Exposome" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8544.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop