MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788436468 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005772

The development and application of bioinformatics core competencies to improve bioinformatics training and education

2018· article· en· W2788436468 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicola Mulder, Russell Schwartz, Michelle D. Brazas, Cath Brooksbank, Bruno Gaëta, Sarah Morgan, Mark Pauley, Anne Rosenwald, Gabriella Rustici, Michael Sierk, Tandy Warnow, Lonnie R. Welch

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteGovernment of OntarioNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchNIH Office of the DirectorGordon and Betty Moore FoundationPennsylvania Department of Health
KeywordsCurriculumProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)Training (meteorology)Computer scienceCore competencyField (mathematics)Knowledge baseTask (project management)Medical educationBioinformaticsHealth careKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceMedicinePsychologyEngineeringBiologyPolitical scienceManagementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioinformatics is recognized as part of the essential knowledge base of numerous career paths in biomedical research and healthcare. However, there is little agreement in the field over what that knowledge entails or how best to provide it. These disagreements are compounded by the wide range of populations in need of bioinformatics training, with divergent prior backgrounds and intended application areas. The Curriculum Task Force of the International Society of Computational Biology (ISCB) Education Committee has sought to provide a framework for training needs and curricula in terms of a set of bioinformatics core competencies that cut across many user personas and training programs. The initial competencies developed based on surveys of employers and training programs have since been refined through a multiyear process of community engagement. This report describes the current status of the competencies and presents a series of use cases illustrating how they are being applied in diverse training contexts. These use cases are intended to demonstrate how others can make use of the competencies and engage in the process of their continuing refinement and application. The report concludes with a consideration of remaining challenges and future plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations134
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207