Use of Elasticsearch-based business intelligence tools for integration and visualization of biological data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of massive datasets exploring the multiple levels of molecular biology has made their analysis and knowledge transfer more complex. Flexible tools to manage big biological datasets could be of great help for standardizing the usage of developed data visualizations and integration methods. Business intelligence (BI) tools have been used in many fields as exploratory tools. They have numerous connectors to link numerous data repositories with a unified graphic interface, offering an overview of data and facilitating interpretation for decision makers. BI tools could be a flexible and user-friendly way of handling molecular biological data with interactive visualizations. However, it is rather uncommon to see such tools used for the exploration of massive and complex datasets in biological fields. We believe that two main obstacles could be the reason. Firstly, we posit that the way to import data into BI tools are not compatible with biological databases. Secondly, BI tools may not be adapted to certain particularities of complex biological data, namely, the size, the variability of datasets and the availability of specialized visualizations. This paper highlights the use of five BI tools (Elastic Kibana, Siren Investigate, Microsoft Power BI, Salesforce Tableau and Apache Superset) onto which the massive data management repository engine called Elasticsearch is compatible. Four case studies will be discussed in which these BI tools were applied on biological datasets with different characteristics. We conclude that the performance of the tools depends on the complexity of the biological questions and the size of the datasets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".