Biological databases in the age of generative artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Modern biological research critically depends on public databases. The introduction and propagation of errors within and across databases can lead to wasted resources as scientists are led astray by bad data or have to conduct expensive validation experiments. The emergence of generative artificial intelligence systems threatens to compound this problem owing to the ease with which massive volumes of synthetic data can be generated. We provide an overview of several key issues that occur within the biological data ecosystem and make several recommendations aimed at reducing data errors and their propagation. We specifically highlight the critical importance of improved educational programs aimed at biologists and life scientists that emphasize best practices in data engineering. We also argue for increased theoretical and empirical research on data provenance, error propagation, and on understanding the impact of errors on analytic pipelines. Furthermore, we recommend enhanced funding for the stewardship and maintenance of public biological databases. Availability and implementation: Not applicable.
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
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".