Developing Cancer Informatics Applications and Tools Using the NCI Genomic Data Commons API
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The NCI Genomic Data Commons (GDC) was launched in 2016 and makes available over 4 petabytes (PB) of cancer genomic and associated clinical data to the research community. This dataset continues to grow and currently includes over 14,500 patients. The GDC is an example of a biomedical data commons, which collocates biomedical data with storage and computing infrastructure and commonly used web services, software applications, and tools to create a secure, interoperable, and extensible resource for researchers. The GDC is (i) a data repository for downloading data that have been submitted to it, and also a system that (ii) applies a common set of bioinformatics pipelines to submitted data; (iii) reanalyzes existing data when new pipelines are developed; and (iv) allows users to build their own applications and systems that interoperate with the GDC using the GDC Application Programming Interface (API). We describe the GDC API and how it has been used both by the GDC itself and by third parties. Cancer Res; 77(21); e15–18. ©2017 AACR.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".