Automated assessment of biological database assertions using the scientific literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The large biological databases such as GenBank contain vast numbers of records, the content of which is substantively based on external resources, including published literature. Manual curation is used to establish whether the literature and the records are indeed consistent. We explore in this paper an automated method for assessing the consistency of biological assertions, to assist biocurators, which we call BARC, Biocuration tool for Assessment of Relation Consistency. In this method a biological assertion is represented as a relation between two objects (for example, a gene and a disease); we then use our novel set-based relevance algorithm SaBRA to retrieve pertinent literature, and apply a classifier to estimate the likelihood that this relation (assertion) is correct. RESULTS: Our experiments on assessing gene-disease relations and protein-protein interactions using the PubMed Central collection show that BARC can be effective at assisting curators to perform data cleansing. Specifically, the results obtained showed that BARC substantially outperforms the best baselines, with an improvement of F-measure of 3.5% and 13%, respectively, on gene-disease relations and protein-protein interactions. We have additionally carried out a feature analysis that showed that all feature types are informative, as are all fields of the documents. CONCLUSIONS: BARC provides a clear benefit for the biocuration community, as there are no prior automated tools for identifying inconsistent assertions in large-scale biological databases.
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 | 0.016 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".