Modeling and Managing Experimental Data Using FuGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Functional Genomics Experiment data model (FuGE) has been developed to increase the consistency and efficiency of experimental data modeling in the life sciences, and it has been adopted by a number of high-profile standardization organizations. FuGE can be used: (1) directly, whereby generic modeling constructs are used to represent concepts from specific experimental activities; or (2) as a framework within which method-specific models can be developed. FuGE is both rich and flexible, providing a considerable number of modeling constructs, which can be used in a range of different ways. However, such richness and flexibility also mean that modelers and application developers have choices to make when applying FuGE in a given context. This paper captures emerging best practice in the use of FuGE in the light of the experience of several groups by: (1) proposing guidelines for the use and extension of the FuGE data model; (2) presenting design patterns that reflect recurring requirements in experimental data modeling; and (3) describing a community software tool kit (STK) that supports application development using FuGE. We anticipate that these guidelines will encourage consistent usage of FuGE, and as such, will contribute to the development of convergent data standards in omics research.
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 | 0.055 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".