OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this project is to develop a strategy to collect and extract published evidence in real time and to house and model these data for efficient downstream application to Program activities such as targeted reviews, grant evaluation and partner engagement. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We created the World Trade Center Health Effects Library in 2016. Today, this living review is ongoing and is fueled by daily systematic searches of online publication databases. Each day we screen new references for health effects of 9/11. The publication must include measurements, reports, or discussion of 9/11 health effects. If a publication meets these criteria, it is categorized by outcome and funding category. Primary outcome category data, reference metadata, and funding data are then made immediately available for programmatic analysis. All reference data are entered into a data pipeline and modelled for targeted reviews. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The WTC Health Effects Library curates 1932 references and adds an average of 60 new references each year on a wide range of study populations, exposures, and conditions. The completeness of the library has been verified by comprehensive literature searches for 9/11 health outcomes conducted externally and by CDC Library staff. As a result, the curated library is a proven alternative to a lengthy literature search and allows the Program and stakeholders to explore the data and engage immediately in targeted reviews on curated topics. The data that are collected in the screening and categorization process are merged with publication metadata and funding data to inform a data pipeline that supports outputs such as interactive visuals, charts, reports, and curated bibliographies for structured review. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This living review allows the Program to rapidly conduct focused reviews, to evaluate grants, and to communicate accurate data to partners. By using the curated data, we have reduced the time required to perform mandated evidence reviews by weeks, have conducted two structured reviews, and defined gaps in research maturity and health equity.