MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964354311 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11026-x

A machine-compiled database of genome-wide association studies

2019· article· en· W2964354311 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Volodymyr Kuleshov, Jialin Ding, Christopher Vo, Braden Hancock, Alexander Ratner, Yang Li, Christopher Ré, Serafim Batzoglou, M Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyOffice of Naval ResearchAnt Financial Services GroupNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationVMwareStanford Bio-XAccentureGordon and Betty Moore FoundationOkawa Foundation for Information and Telecommunications
KeywordsComputer sciencePrecision and recallInformation extractionInformation retrievalAssociation (psychology)Genetic programmingGenome-wide association studyKnowledge baseData scienceArtificial intelligenceGenotypeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tens of thousands of genotype-phenotype associations have been discovered to date, yet not all of them are easily accessible to scientists. Here, we describe GWASkb, a machine-compiled knowledge base of genetic associations collected from the scientific literature using automated information extraction algorithms. Our information extraction system helps curators by automatically collecting over 6,000 associations from open-access publications with an estimated recall of 60-80% and with an estimated precision of 78-94% (measured relative to existing manually curated knowledge bases). This system represents a fully automated GWAS curation effort and is made possible by a paradigm for constructing machine learning systems called data programming. Our work represents a step towards making the curation of scientific literature more efficient using automated systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207