Recognizing, reporting and reducing the data curation debt of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Good data curation is integral to cohort studies, but it is not always done to a level necessary to ensure the longevity of the data a study holds. In this opinion paper, we introduce the concept of data curation debt-the data curation equivalent to the software engineering principle of technical debt. Using the context of UK cohort studies, we define data curation debt-describing examples and their potential impact. We highlight that accruing this debt can make it more difficult to use the data in the future. Additionally, the long-running nature of cohort studies means that interest is accrued on this debt and compounded over time-increasing the impact a debt could have on a study and its stakeholders. Primary causes of data curation debt are discussed across three categories: longevity of hardware, software and data formats; funding; and skills shortages. Based on cross-domain best practice, strategies to reduce the debt and preventive measures are proposed-with importance given to the recognition and transparent reporting of data curation debt. Describing the debt in this way, we encapsulate a multi-faceted issue in simple terms understandable by all cohort study stakeholders. Data curation debt is not only confined to the UK, but is an issue the international community must be aware of and address. This paper aims to stimulate a discussion between cohort studies and their stakeholders on how to address the issue of data curation debt. If data curation debt is left unchecked it could become impossible to use highly valued cohort study data, and ultimately represents an existential risk to studies themselves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".