Omics Discovery Index - Discovering and Linking Public ‘Omics’ Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomedical data, in particular omics datasets are being generated at an unprecedented rate. This is due to the falling costs of generating experimental data, improved accuracy and better accessibility to different omics platforms such as genomics, proteomics and metabolomics 1 , 2 . As a result, the number of deposited datasets in public repositories originating from various omics approaches has increased dramatically in recent years. With strong support from scientific journals and funders, public data sharing is increasingly considered to be a good scientific practice, facilitating the confirmation of original results, increasing the reproducibility of the analyses, enabling the exploration of new or related hypotheses, and fostering the identification of potential errors, discouraging fraud 3 . This increase in public data deposition of omics results is a good starting point, but opens up a series of new challenges. For example the research community must now find more efficient ways for storing, organizing and providing access to biomedical data across platforms. These challenges range from achieving a common representation framework for the datasets and the associated metadata from different omics fields, to the availability of efficient methods, protocols and file formats for data exchange between multiple repositories. Therefore, there is a great need for development of new platforms and applications to make possible to search datasets across different omics fields, making such information accessible to the end-user. The FAIR paradigm describes a set of guiding principles to address many of these issues, and aims to make data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable( https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples ).
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
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".