Toward a common standard for data and specimen provenance in life sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open and practical exchange, dissemination, and reuse of specimens and data have become a fundamental requirement for life sciences research. The quality of the data obtained and thus the findings and knowledge derived is thus significantly influenced by the quality of the samples, the experimental methods, and the data analysis. Therefore, a comprehensive and precise documentation of the pre-analytical conditions, the analytical procedures, and the data processing are essential to be able to assess the validity of the research results. With the increasing importance of the exchange, reuse, and sharing of data and samples, procedures are required that enable cross-organizational documentation, traceability, and non-repudiation. At present, this information on the provenance of samples and data is mostly either sparse, incomplete, or incoherent. Since there is no uniform framework, this information is usually only provided within the organization and not interoperably. At the same time, the collection and sharing of biological and environmental specimens increasingly require definition and documentation of benefit sharing and compliance to regulatory requirements rather than consideration of pure scientific needs. In this publication, we present an ongoing standardization effort to provide trustworthy machine-actionable documentation of the data lineage and specimens. We would like to invite experts from the biotechnology and biomedical fields to further contribute to the standard.
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 | 0.410 | 0.429 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".