Publication, funding, and experimental data in support of Human Reference Atlas construction and usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experts from 18 consortia are collaborating on the Human Reference Atlas (HRA) which aims to map the 37 trillion cells in the healthy human body. Information relevant for HRA construction and usage is held by experts, published in scholarly papers, and captured in experimental data. However, these data sources use different metadata schemas and cannot be cross-searched efficiently. This paper documents the compilation of a dataset, named HRAlit, that links the 136 HRA v1.4 digital objects (31 organs with 4,279 anatomical structures, 1,210 cell types, 2,089 biomarkers) to 583,117 experts; 7,103,180 publications; 896,680 funded projects, and 1,816 experimental datasets. The resulting HRAlit has 22 tables with 20,939,937 records including 6 junction tables with 13,170,651 relationships. The HRAlit can be mined to identify leading experts, major papers, funding trends, or alignment with existing ontologies in support of systematic HRA construction and usage.
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 | 0.028 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.075 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.014 |
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".