Using semantic search to find publicly available gene-expression datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of high-throughput, molecular datasets have been shared in public repositories. have been shared in public repositories. Researchers can reuse such data to validate their own findings and explore novel questions. A frequent goal is to find multiple datasets that address similar research topics and to either combine them directly or integrate inferences from them. However, a major challenge is finding relevant datasets due to the vast number of candidates, inconsistencies in their descriptions, and a lack of semantic annotations. This challenge is first among the FAIR principles for scientific data. Here we focus on dataset discovery within Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), a repository containing 100,000s of data series. GEO supports queries based on keywords, ontology terms, and other annotations. However, reviewing these results is time-consuming and tedious, and it often misses relevant datasets. We hypothesized that language models could address this problem by summarizing dataset descriptions as numeric representations (embeddings). Assuming a researcher has previously found some relevant datasets, we evaluated the potential to find additional relevant datasets. For six human medical conditions, we used 30 models to generate embeddings for datasets that human curators had previously associated with the conditions and identified other datasets with the most similar descriptions. This approach was often, but not always, more effective than GEO's search engine. Our top-performing models were trained on general corpora, used contrastive-learning strategies, and used relatively large embeddings. Our findings suggest that language models have the potential to improve dataset discovery, perhaps in combination with existing search tools.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".