Normal Workflow and Key Strategies for Data Cleaning Toward Real-World Data: Viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of science, technology, and engineering, large amounts of data have been generated in many fields in the past 20 years. In the process of medical research, data are constantly generated, and large amounts of real-world data form a "data disaster." Effective data analysis and mining are based on data availability and high data quality. The premise of high data quality is the need to clean the data. Data cleaning is the process of detecting and correcting "dirty data," which is the basis of data analysis and management. Moreover, data cleaning is a common technology for improving data quality. However, the current literature on real-world research provides little guidance on how to efficiently and ethically set up and perform data cleaning. To address this issue, we proposed a data cleaning framework for real-world research, focusing on the 3 most common types of dirty data (duplicate, missing, and outlier data), and a normal workflow for data cleaning to serve as a reference for the application of such technologies in future studies. We also provided relevant suggestions for common problems in data cleaning.
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 | 0.039 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".