A Community Effort to Develop Common Data Elements for Pre-Clinical Spinal Cord Injury Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly 350 years, the process of disseminating scientific knowledge has remained largely unchanged. Scientists conduct experiments, analyze the data, and publish their findings in the form of scientific articles. Since the turn of the century, this process has been challenged by numerous open science and data sharing efforts to enhance transparency, reproducibility, and replicability of scientific research. Big data approaches, together with machine learning and artificial intelligence, are frequently used to gain insight into the ever-growing complexity of biological systems and biomedical research. To utilize these approaches and harness the continuously increasing computational power requires data to be both machine readable and, ideally, harmonized across studies. Therein lies the challenge: understanding how to organize and describe data is a critical skill for scientists, yet one that is rarely explicitly taught. Common data elements (CDEs), standardized definitions, and reporting structures for data represent a practical solution to this challenge. With the goal of creating a common language to describe and share pre-clinical spinal cord injury (SCI) research data, the open data commons for SCI, in collaboration with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, kicked off this process with the "Preclinical SCI Common Data Elements (CDE) Workshop," held in conjunction with the National Neurotrauma Symposium in San Francisco, California in June 2024. In this report, we discuss the workshop proceedings, summarize the input provided by the SCI research community, share insights from related CDE efforts, and provide a pragmatic approach to creating CDEs for pre-clinical SCI research.
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 | 0.445 | 0.509 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.067 |
| Open science | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".