{"data":{"sci_version": "1.2", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:35433487", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 4, "content_hash": "sha256:279f519c9658b2f582bcc7fc41ac2d4f26f8875100f2c022818d354f0e187c3f", "created_at": "2026-11-01T18:14:16Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T22:06:19Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "Identification of LncRNA Prognostic Signature Associated With Genomic Instability in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.", "doi": "10.3389/fonc.2022.799475", "pmid": "35433487", "authors": ["Jinfeng Zhu", "Qian Huang", "Xingyu Peng", "Chen Luo", "Sicheng Liu", "Zitao Liu", "Xun Wu", "Hongliang Luo"], "journal": "Frontiers in oncology", "year": 2022, "abstract": "Background: Genomic instability (GI) is a critical feature of cancer which plays a key role in the occurrence and development of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAAD). Long non-coding RNA (LncRNA) is an emerging prognostic biomarker because it is involved in regulating GI. Recently, researchers used such GI-related LncRNAs (GILncRNAs) to establish a prognostic signature for patients with cancer and helped in predicting the overall prognosis of the patients. However, it is evident that patients with PAAD still lack such prognostic signature constructed with GILncRNA.\nMethods: The present study screened GILncRNAs from 83 patients with PAAD. Prognosis-related GILncRNAs were identified by univariate Cox regression analysis. The correlation coefficients of these GILncRNAs were obtained by multivariate Cox regression analysis and used to construct a signature. The signature in the present study was then assessed through survival analysis, mutation correlation analysis, independent prognostic analysis, and clinical stratification analysis in the training set and validated in the testing as well as all TCGA set. The current study performed external clinical relevance validation of the signature and validated the effect of AC108134.2 in GILncSig on PAAD using in vitro experiments. Finally, the function of GILncRNA signature (GILncSig) dependent on Gene Ontology enrichment analysis was explored and chemotherapeutic drug sensitivity analysis was also performed.\nResults: Results of the present study found that a total of 409 GILncRNAs were identified, 5 of which constituted the prognostic risk signature in this study, namely, AC095057.3, AC108134.2, AC124798.1, AL606834.1, and AC104695.4. It was found that the signature of the present study was better than others in predicting the overall survival and applied to patients with PAAD of all ages, genders, and tumor grades. Further, it was noted that the signature of the current study in the GSE102238, was correlated with tumor length, and tumor stage of patients with PAAD. In vitro, functional experiments were used in the present study to validate that AC108134.2 is associated with PAAD genomic instability and progression. Notably, results of the pRRophetic analysis in the current study showed that the high-risk group possessed reverse characteristics and was sensitive to chemotherapy.\nConclusions: In conclusion, it was evident that the GILncSig used in the present study has good prognostic performance. Therefore, the signature may become a potential sensitive biological indicator of PAAD chemotherapy, which may help in clinical decision-making and management of patients with cancer.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-method", "statement": "The “survival” package was used to conduct univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis on the survival data of GILncRNAs in the training set to complete the construction of the prognostic risk signature.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:35433487", "locator": "sections[6] \"Establishment of Prognostic Risk Signature\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The “survival” package was used to conduct univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis on the survival data of GILncRNAs in the training set to complete the construction of the prognostic risk signature."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-data-access", "statement": "Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found in the TCGA database here: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/, and the GSE102238: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE102238.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:35433487", "locator": "sections[32] \"Data Availability Statement\" paragraph 2", "quote": "Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found in the TCGA database here: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/, and the GSE102238: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE102238."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-target-result", "statement": "A five-lncRNA genomic-instability-related prognostic signature was established for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and achieved a 5-year survival-prediction AUC of 0.953 in the TCGA set.", "kind": "qualitative", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:35433487", "locator": "sections[26] \"Signature Comparison and External Verification\" paragraph 2", "quote": "By plotting the ROC curve, it was found that the area under the ROC curve of the current signature for 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival prediction was all the largest (AUC = 0.752, 0.798, and 0.953, respectively), which was significantly greater than those established by Lei (AUC = 0.646, 0.713, and 0.735) and Wang (AUC = 0.719, 0.671, and 0.726) ( Figures 7A–C )."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "complete", "objective": "A five-lncRNA genomic-instability-related prognostic signature was established for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and achieved a 5-year survival-prediction AUC of 0.953 in the TCGA set.", "steps": [{"id": "read_published_estimate", "order": 1, "name": "Read the published estimate from the source", "kind": "other", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "The claim, method and evidence span published with the source article.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["source:pmid:35433487"], "outputs": ["the published estimate and its evidence"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "obtain_source_data", "order": 2, "name": "Obtain the source data from the named repository", "kind": "data-preparation", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "The GEO series accession resolves and its sample accessions are listed. This lane did not download the dataset or read its licence.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["data:geo:GSE102238"], "outputs": ["the source data with its repository provenance"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "run_analysis", "order": 3, "name": "Run the published analysis", "kind": "analysis", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "Apply the paper's statistical method to the resolved series and compare the result with the published target.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["data:geo:GSE102238"], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": []}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:35433487", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.799475", "sha256": "sha256:8541fe459232627dde3a6244be979c52c3505d7edd771eeadca579b80018e9c0", "bytes": 46965, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.3389/fonc.2022.799475", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC9012103", "source": "europe_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body_without_references", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE102238", "role": "raw", "format": "geo-series", "media_type": "application/vnd.ncbi.geo-series+json", "uri": "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE102238", "sha256": null, "bytes": null, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "GSE102238", "version": null, "note": "Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found in the TCGA database here: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/, and the GSE102238: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE102238.", "structure": {"repository": "GEO", "access_route": "GEO accession URL", "access_statement_verbatim": "Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found in the TCGA database here: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/, and the GSE102238: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE102238.", "access_statement_kind": "data_availability_statement", "sample_accessions": ["GSM2731543", "GSM2731544", "GSM2731545", "GSM2731546", "GSM2731547", "GSM2731548", "GSM2731549", "GSM2731550", "GSM2731551", "GSM2731552", "GSM2731553", "GSM2731554", "GSM2731555", "GSM2731556", "GSM2731557", "GSM2731558", "GSM2731559", "GSM2731560", "GSM2731561", "GSM2731562", "GSM2731563", "GSM2731564", "GSM2731565", "GSM2731566", "GSM2731567", "GSM2731568", "GSM2731569", "GSM2731570", "GSM2731571", "GSM2731572", "GSM2731573", "GSM2731574", "GSM2731575", "GSM2731576", "GSM2731577", "GSM2731578", "GSM2731579", "GSM2731580", "GSM2731581", "GSM2731582", "GSM2731583", "GSM2731584", "GSM2731585", "GSM2731586", "GSM2731587", "GSM2731588", "GSM2731589", "GSM2731590", "GSM2731591", "GSM2731592", "GSM2731593", "GSM2731594", "GSM2731595", "GSM2731596", "GSM2731597", "GSM2731598", "GSM2731599", "GSM2731600", "GSM2731601", "GSM2731602", "GSM2731603", "GSM2731604", "GSM2731605", "GSM2731606", "GSM2731607", "GSM2731608", "GSM2731609", "GSM2731610", "GSM2731611", "GSM2731612", "GSM2731613", "GSM2731614", "GSM2731615", "GSM2731616", "GSM2731617", "GSM2731618", "GSM2731619", "GSM2731620", "GSM2731621", "GSM2731622", "GSM2731623", "GSM2731624", "GSM2731625", "GSM2731626", "GSM2731627", "GSM2731628", "GSM2731629", "GSM2731630", "GSM2731631", "GSM2731632", "GSM2731633", "GSM2731634", "GSM2731635", "GSM2731636", "GSM2731637", "GSM2731638", "GSM2731639", "GSM2731640", "GSM2731641", "GSM2731642"], "sample_count": 100, "group_sizes": null, "group_sizes_basis": null, "platform": "19072", "taxon": "Homo sapiens", "title": "Gene expression signatures associated with Perineural Invasion in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma", "resolution_checked_at": "2026-11-01T15:39:54Z", "resolution_check": "identifier_resolution_only_no_download_no_licence_read", "downloaded": false, "licence_read": false}}], "gaps": ["asset:data:geo:GSE102238 not downloaded", "asset:data:geo:GSE102238 licence not read"]}, "analysis": {"state": "complete", "methods": [{"id": "method-1", "family": "survival_analysis", "specific": "cox_proportional_hazards", "label": "Survival analysis", "dsl_operations": ["cox_ph"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["time_to_event_with_censoring"], "evidence": {"score": 1.0, "band": "verbatim", "quote": "The “survival” package was used to conduct univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis on the survival data of GILncRNAs in the training set to complete the construction of the prognostic risk signature."}}, {"id": "method-2", "family": "differential_expression", "specific": "limma_voom", "label": "Differential expression analysis", "dsl_operations": ["normalise_counts", "differential_expression_fit", "fdr_bh"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["count_matrix_with_condition"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "limma"}}, {"id": "method-3", "family": "clustering", "specific": "hierarchical", "label": "Clustering", "dsl_operations": ["hierarchical_cluster"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["feature_matrix"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "Hierarchical Clustering"}}], "targets": [], "gaps": []}, "capability": {"state": "complete", "requirements": [{"capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "label": "Computational analysis platform", "assay_families": ["meta_analysis", "machine_learning", "survival_analysis", "statistical_regression", "pca", "molecular_docking", "network_analysis", "differential_expression", "gwas"], "availability_state": "owned", "tier_unlocked": "R1", "candidate": "Automated Assays Laravel application and simulated adapters"}], "gaps": []}, "readiness": {"state": "complete", "tier": "R1", "blocking_axis": "none", "blocked_on": "nothing:replicable_now", "axes": {"method": {"tier": "R1", "expressible": true, "required_operations": ["cox_ph"], "missing_operations": [], "basis": "The paper names the method it used and the corpus's method extractor maps it onto the DSL catalogue: cox_proportional_hazards."}, "capability": {"tier": "R1", "capability_id": "capability:computational_analysis", "availability_state": "owned", "basis": "The computational analysis is owned. The physical bench the paper used is not, so a physical validation cannot be run here."}, "data": {"tier": "R1", "reachable": true, "accessions": ["GSE102238"], "resolved_accessions": ["GSE102238"], "statements": ["Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found in the TCGA database here: https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/, and the GSE102238: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE102238."], "basis": "The paper names GSE102238 in gene expression Omnibus (GEO) and the accession resolves in the repository. No dataset was downloaded and no licence was read."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": ["cox_ph"], "assets": ["source:pmid:35433487", "data:geo:GSE102238"], "steps": ["run_analysis"]}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:GSE102238"]}, "gaps": []}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-11-01T17:42:29Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": "verbatim", "availability": "verbatim"}, "calls": 5, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 13229, "completion_tokens": 1935, "cached_tokens": 264}}, "human_critique": null, "stages": [{"id": "extraction", "state": "complete", "reader": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax"}], "gaps": ["review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "review.human_critique"]}, "execution": {"state": "absent", "status": "not_run", "mode": null, "runs": [], "gaps": ["execution.not_run"]}, "provenance": {"entities": [{"id": "pmid:35433487", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:35433487"}, {"id": "source:pmid:35433487", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 35433487 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE102238", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO GSE102238"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:35433487", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:35433487"}, {"id": "source:pmid:35433487", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 35433487 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE102238", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO GSE102238"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-35433487", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:35433487"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-GSE102238", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:GSE102238"], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}], "agents": [{"id": "agent:corpus-assay-engine", "type": "software", "label": "Corpus assay engine"}, {"id": "agent:minimax-reader", "type": "software", "label": "MiniMax literature reader"}], "source_run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01", "dsl_catalogue_fingerprint": "343fb30756ba6ec3", "capability_table_fingerprint": "2cb3e42f047d2ecf", "snapshot_id": "ba34b49490d9bfaf"}, "lineage": {"parent_id": "pmid:35433487", "parent_hash": "sha256:39a88c4ae0c7fdcdffbb607761eeceb777e8367dcddb0093b1fb93e31d8b187c", "fork_of": null, "generation": 3}, "gaps": ["asset:data:geo:GSE102238 licence not read", "asset:data:geo:GSE102238 not downloaded", "execution.not_run", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique"], "assays": [{"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "transfection", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.99, "evidence": ["he Declaration of Helsinki. Cell Culture and Transfection The human PAAD cell line (BxPC-3 cell) was p", "chased from GenePharma (Shanghai, China) and transfected with Lipofectamine 3000 reagents (Invitrogen", "ine 3000 reagents (Invitrogen, Waltham, USA) transfected BxPC-3 according to standard guidelines. The", "role of AC108134.2 in PAAD cells, siRNA was transfected into BxPC-3 cells and it was evident that th"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:3909", "id": "assay:1"}, {"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "cell_culture", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.77, "evidence": ["e identification of the cell bank. They were cultured in 1640 (Gibco, USA) supplemented with 10% feta"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:4157", "id": "assay:2"}, {"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "apoptosis_assay", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.99, "evidence": ["PC-3 cells was verified through qRT-PCR. (C) CCK-8 assay was used to detect the changes in cell", "< 0.001. ns stands for p > 0.05. Results of CCK-8 showed that knockdown of AC108134.2 suppress"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:6084", "id": "assay:3"}, {"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "western_blot", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.99, "evidence": ["PC-3 cells after silencing of AC108134.2 (G) Western blot analysis of the expression of genomic instab", "34.2 affects genomic instability. Results of western blotting showed that after the knockdown of AC108134."], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:6554", "id": "assay:4"}, {"role": "analysis", "definition_id": "survival_analysis", "definition_version": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": ["cox_ph"], "support_state": "supported", "source_hashes": {"dsl_catalogue": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e"}, "confidence": 1.0, "evidence": ["The “survival” package was used to conduct univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis on the survival data of GILncRNAs in the training set to complete the construction of the prognostic risk signature."], "order_basis": "consumes_earlier_output", "id": "assay:5"}]},"meta":{"api_version":"v1","automation_ladder_snapshot":"ba34b49490d9bfaf","automation_ladder_caveats":["Method extraction is rule-based and has no hand-judged accuracy sample. Evidence bands order textual support; method agreement intervals are null (n=0), never probabilities. Work-type validation does not validate methods.","Operation coverage describes only explicitly named methods. It does not prove a complete protocol, compatible parameters, successful compilation or re-execution. Unrecognised or ambiguous methods require review.","Data reachability is a textual accession or public-data statement. No dataset was downloaded or checked for access, completeness or licence.","Capabilities are planning states seeded from the dated equipment register. No bench ownership, completed quote or partner booking is inferred. Procurement counts are dependencies, not guaranteed replications or financial returns.","Tier and blocker counts are deterministic assessments of this corpus, not measured agreement. R3 is reserved for procurement; unresolved methods and data require human work (R4). The most restrictive axis wins, with capability, method, data as tie-breaks. Resolving one blocker can leave another at the same tier."],"engine":"corpus_engine","engine_provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","run_id":"run-20261023T122449232913","source":"esearch","source_detail":"PubMed mirror biomed_pubmed (read-only)","run_status":"complete","imported_at":"2026-11-03T20:16:52+00:00","generated_at":"2026-11-04T02:16:15+00:00","total_papers":5529,"total_assays_tracked":29,"automatable_assay_families":6,"validated":true,"caveat_count":9,"blocking_caveats":5,"caveats":[{"code":"low_evidence_dominates","basis":["4,152 of 5,529 classifications (75.1%) matched no cue evidence and sit at the 0.05 floor.","34 of 230 data_only calls (14.8%) are in that group."],"claim":"Work type and confidence bands","gloss":"Most records were classified from their title and framing alone, with assay-cue coverage at zero.","detail":"Most classifications in this run rest on no matched evidence at all. At the evidence floor the work type comes from title framing and a fixed prior, not from anything in the paper, so the published work-type split should be read as a rough triage signal rather than a measured distribution. The impact is bounded but not removed: since 2026-10-23 the engine excludes floor-confidence records from the shortlist entirely and publishes them separately as held out, so the recommendation is unaffected even though the census is.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"runtime_is_modelled","basis":["Runtime is summed from published per-assay hour figures. Timing awaits the first executed replication.","4,407 of 5,529 records (79.7%) model to 0.00 hours because no assay was matched, which the ranking then reads as \"cheapest\".","0 of 10 shortlisted records carry a 0.00-hour estimate."],"claim":"Estimated replication runtime","gloss":"The hour figures are estimates built from assay mentions; timing awaits the first executed replication.","detail":"The hour figures are a cost model derived from the bench steps implied by each matched assay family. The first executed replication will supply measured timing. Records without an assay match currently receive a zero-hour model value.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"signal_score_without_citations","basis":["5,529 of 5,529 records (100.0%) have no citation count from the source metadata."],"claim":"Signal score","gloss":"The signal score uses publication-type weight because the mirror supplied zero citation counts.","detail":"The source supplied no citation counts for any record in this run, so the signal score is publication-type weight only. The citation term of the ranking is inert here, and the shortlist is ordered by publication type alone.","status":"unverified","severity":"high"},{"code":"abstract_absent","basis":["1,667 of 5,529 records (30.2%) carry no abstract at all."],"claim":"Evidence base for classification","gloss":"Some records contain a title and publication type only, defining the available classification evidence.","detail":"Where the mirror contains a title and publication types only, those fields define the classifier evidence. A methods section is required for fuller automated and human review.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"},{"code":"classifier_agreement_measured","basis":["Published two-way decision agreement 77.7% (310 of 399 decidable records) from a stratified hand-check of 438 real records.","Three-way diagnostic agreement 73.9% (288 of 390 decidable records).","data_only agreement 75.2% (100 of 133 decidable).","48 record(s) could not be decided from title and abstract and were excluded from the denominator.","56 analysis-only records were published under another work type, so the data_only share is not an upper bound."],"claim":"Published automatable decision","gloss":"This figure has been checked against a human reading the same papers, so we know how often it is right.","detail":"The published automatable / not-automatable distribution comes from a rule-based classifier that was hand-checked against a fixed ground-truth definition. The agreement rates below are measured, not estimated. The three-way work type remains a diagnostic and is reported separately.","status":"measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"llm_comparison_not_measured","basis":["rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f produced 5,529 of 5,529 classifications.","Measured on 438 labelled records; these are RULE-BASED figures, not model results."],"claim":"Rule-based versus LLM agreement","gloss":"Every number here is the rule engine’s own. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","detail":"The published two-way decision agreed with a human reading on 310 of 399 decidable records (77.7%). The diagnostic three-way label agreed on 288 of 390 decidable records (73.9%). Every percentage in this run belongs to the rule engine. Model comparison begins when a working API credential is connected and measured.","status":"not_measured","severity":"high"},{"code":"confidence_is_a_band","basis":["low band: 135 of 210 hand-judged records were correct, 64.3% [57.6, 70.5] (95% CI).","medium band: 80 of 104 hand-judged records were correct, 76.9% [68.0, 84.0] (95% CI).","high band: 73 of 76 hand-judged records were correct, 96.0% [89.0, 98.7] (95% CI).","A fitted calibrated probability was built, measured and withdrawn: it overstated held-out accuracy and reorders nothing."],"claim":"Confidence band and evidence score","gloss":"The confidence band carries a measured accuracy interval; 0.85 represents relative rank strength.","detail":"Confidence on this run is a BAND plus its measured accuracy interval. The number stored alongside each record is a monotone evidence score that orders records; 0.85 represents relative rank strength. A fitted probability was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy. Threshold on the band.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"three_way_split_is_diagnostic","basis":["The corpus is published at the two-way decision: automatable or not-automatable. The three-way split (data_only / physical / mixed) is published as a diagnostic with its measured reliability attached, not as a claim, because the rule engine's `mixed` call cannot be defended.","The engine called 22 record(s) mixed; 10 matched the human judgement (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9-65.3).","The engine's `mixed` call is right on 10/22 hand-judged records (45.5%, 95% CI 26.9%-65.3%); a constant `physical` guess scores 36.4%.","The engine's `mixed` call does not reliably beat a constant `physical` guess on the hand-judged records it labels mixed.","The sign of that difference flips between two independent samples, so the three-way refinement is not demonstrably informative.","The mixed stratum contributes a disproportionate share of errors relative to its size.","At title-only depth the physical/mixed split collapses: a title says that work was done, not whether it was also analysed."],"claim":"The published decision is two-way","gloss":"The three-way split is shown for diagnosis only. The published split is two ways.","detail":"Count and filter the corpus on automatable versus not-automatable. The data_only / physical / mixed split remains an internal engine diagnostic because the mixed call has lower measured reliability.","status":"measured","severity":"medium"},{"code":"automatable_flag_unproven","basis":["6 of 29 assay families are marked automatable now: meta_analysis, machine_learning, survival_analysis, pca, molecular_docking, differential_expression.","The flag is a rule over assay family and work type; validation begins with the first executed replication.","It inherits the 75.2% data_only agreement rate, because the flag requires the record to be analysis-only."],"claim":"Automatable now","gloss":"This flag marks assay families the rules classify as data-only. The first executed replication will validate it.","detail":"This flag marks families the rules consider replicable from data alone. Its validity depends on the analysis-only classification and will be measured through an executed replication.","status":"unverified","severity":"medium"}],"confidence_policy":"band_with_measured_interval","confidence_contract":{"policy":"band_with_measured_interval","summary":"Confidence is reported as a BAND with a measured accuracy interval. The raw evidence score supplies monotone ordering. A fitted point estimate was withdrawn after it overstated held-out accuracy.","evidence_score":"A monotone evidence score in [0,1] built from cue mass, axis separation and text coverage. Use it to order records. Interpret 0.85 as relative rank strength.","confidence_band":"low | medium | high. Consumers threshold on this value.","band_accuracy":"Wilson 95% interval on the measured agreement of the hand-judged records in this band.","calibrated_confidence":"WITHDRAWN. Reintroduction requires held-out evidence demonstrating reliable estimates across every bin."},"band_accuracy":{"low":{"n":210,"low":0.576,"band":"low","high":0.7046,"agree":135,"accuracy":0.6429},"high":{"n":76,"low":0.8903,"band":"high","high":0.9865,"agree":73,"accuracy":0.9605},"medium":{"n":104,"low":0.6795,"band":"medium","high":0.8397,"agree":80,"accuracy":0.7692}},"provider":"rule_based_v1+lex99e1195c7d6f","lexicon_id":"99e1195c7d6f","contract_published_at":"2026-10-23T12:25:29.022232+00:00","confidence_is_band":true,"confidence_is_probability":false,"decision_taxonomy":"two_way","decidable_fraction_two_way":0.8854,"decidable_fraction_two_way_low":0.8565,"decidable_fraction_two_way_high":0.9143,"decidable_fraction_three_way":0.8586,"decidable_fraction_three_way_low":0.8287,"decidable_fraction_three_way_high":0.8884,"decidable_population":5529,"validation_sample_size":438,"three_way_cost_fraction":0.0268,"three_way_cost_records":148,"decision_counts":{"automatable":230,"not_automatable":5299},"decision_split":{"automatable":{"count":230,"share":0.04159884246699222},"not_automatable":{"count":5299,"share":0.9584011575330078}},"diagnostic_work_type_counts":{"mixed":24,"physical":5275,"data_only":230}}}