Back

CureSCi Metadata Catalog - Making sickle cell studies findable

Pan, H.; Ives, C.; Mandal, M.; Qin, Y.; Hendershot, T.; Brambilla, D.; Treadwell, M.; Wu, X.; Popovic, J.; Stratford, J.; Kroner, B.

2021-08-13 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.08.13.456291 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo adopt the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) to enhance data sharing, the Cure Sickle Cell Initiative (CureSCi) MetaData Catalog (MDC) was developed to make Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) study datasets more Findable by curating study metadata and making them available through an open-access web portal. MethodsStudy metadata, including study protocol, data collection forms, and data dictionaries, describe information about study patient-level data. We curated key metadata of 16 SCD studies in a three-tiered conceptual framework of category, subcategory, and data element using ontologies and controlled vocabularies to organize the study variables. We developed the CureSCi MDC by indexing study metadata to enable effective browse and search capabilities at three levels: study, Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures, and data element levels. ResultsThe CureSCi MDC offers several browse and search tools to discover studies by study level, PRO Measures, and data elements. The "Browse Studies," "Browse Studies by PRO Measures," and "Browse Studies by Data Elements" tools allow users to identify studies through pre-defined conceptual categories. "Search by Keyword" and "Search Data Element by Concept Category" can be used separately or in combination to provide more granularity to refine the search results. This resource helps investigators find information about specific data elements across studies using public browsing/search tools, before going through data request procedures to access controlled datasets. The MDC makes SCD studies more Findable through browsing/searching study information, PRO Measures, and data elements, aiding in the reuse of existing SCD data.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.