{"data":{"sci_version": "1.2", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:38249902", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 4, "content_hash": "sha256:650983b64cc151c8c7c7d72183c36f2f0f7659303ef2977b223ecf4b7b4998f4", "created_at": "2026-11-01T19:20:09Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T22:53:29Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "Development and validation of a DNA damage repair-related gene-based prediction model for the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma.", "doi": "10.21037/jtd-23-1746", "pmid": "38249902", "authors": ["Chu Qin", "Xiaodong Fan", "Xiaoyan Sai", "Bo Yin", "Shufang Zhou", "Alfredo Addeo", "Tao Bian", "Haoda Yu"], "journal": "Journal of thoracic disease", "year": 2023, "abstract": "Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among all cancer types, with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) being the most prevalent subtype. DNA damage repair (DDR)-related genes are closely associated with cancer progression and treatment, with emerging evidence highlighting their correlation with tumor development. However, the relationship between LUAD prognosis and DDR-related genes remains unclear.\nMethods: RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data and clinical information were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. The GSE31210 dataset, utilized for external validation, was retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. Differentially expressed DDR genes were identified, and a DDR-related prognostic model was established and validated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), tumor mutational burden (TMB) analysis, and immune cell infiltration. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.\nResults: A total of 514 patients with LUAD from TCGA database were divided into distinct subtypes to characterize the diversity within the DDR pathway. DDR-activated and DDR-suppressed subgroups showed distinct clinical characteristics, molecular characteristics, and immune profiles. Nine genes were identified as hub DDR-related genes, including CASP14, DKK1, ECT2, FLNC, HMMR, IGFBP1, KRT6A, TYMS, and FCER2. By using the expression levels of these selected genes, the corresponding risk scores for each sample was predicted. In the training group, KM survival analysis revealed that the high-risk group exhibited significantly diminished overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) =3.341, P=1.38e-08]. The corresponding area under the curve (AUC) values for the 1-year follow-up periods was 0.767, respectively. Upon validation in the external cohort, patients with higher risk scores manifested significantly reduced OS (HR =2.372, P=1.87e-03). The AUC values of the ROC curves for the 1-year OS in the validation cohort was 0.87, respectively. Moreover, advanced DDR risk score was correlated with increased TMB scores, a heightened frequency of TP53 mutations, an increased abundance of cancer-testicular antigens (CTAs), and a lower tumor immune dysfunction and exclusion (TIDE) score in patients with LUAD (P<0.05).\nConclusions: A nine-gene risk signature associated with DDR in LUAD was effectively developed, demonstrating its potential as a robust and reliable classification tool for clinical practice. This model exhibited the capability to accurately predict the prognosis and survival outcomes of LUAD patients.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-method", "statement": "The glmnet R package (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression for the purpose of identifying prognostic genes. To prevent overfitting, 10-fold cross-validation was employed to determine the penalized regularization parameter λ in the model.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[6] \"Establishment and validation of a prognostic model\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The glmnet R package (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression for the purpose of identifying prognostic genes. To prevent overfitting, 10-fold cross-validation was employed to determine the penalized regularization parameter λ in the model."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-data-access", "statement": "RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data along with clinical information including age, clinical stage, mutations, copy number variations, days to death, vital status, and more, were obtained from TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/).", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[4] \"Data collection\" paragraph 2", "quote": "RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data along with clinical information including age, clinical stage, mutations, copy number variations, days to death, vital status, and more, were obtained from TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/)."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-target-result", "statement": "A nine-gene prognostic signature was developed using LASSO Cox regression on TCGA LUAD RNA-seq data and externally validated in the GEO GSE13213 cohort, with the high-risk group showing significantly poorer overall survival.", "kind": "quantitative", "target": {"value": 3.341, "unit": "hazard ratio", "tolerance": null, "source": "In the training group, KM survival analysis revealed that the high-risk group exhibited significantly poorer OS compared to the low-risk group (HR =3.341, P=1.38e−08, Figure 8A)."}, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[6] \"Establishment and validation of a prognostic model\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The glmnet R package (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression for the purpose of identifying prognostic genes."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[4] \"Data collection\" paragraph 2", "quote": "RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data along with clinical information including age, clinical stage, mutations, copy number variations, days to death, vital status, and more, were obtained from TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/)."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[4] \"Data collection\" paragraph 2", "quote": "Additionally, the GSE13213 dataset retrieved containing 117 LUAD samples from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) was utilized for external validation."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[15] \"Construction and validation of the prognostic DDR-related gene pair signature\" paragraph 6", "quote": "In the training group, KM survival analysis revealed that the high-risk group exhibited significantly poorer OS compared to the low-risk group (HR =3.341, P=1.38e−08, Figure 8A)."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:38249902", "locator": "sections[15] \"Construction and validation of the prognostic DDR-related gene pair signature\" paragraph 8", "quote": "In the external validation cohort (GSE13213), consistent with the previous findings, patients with higher risk scores exhibited significantly shorter OS compared to those with lower risk scores (Figure 9A)."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "complete", "objective": "A nine-gene prognostic signature was developed using LASSO Cox regression on TCGA LUAD RNA-seq data and externally validated in the GEO GSE13213 cohort, with the high-risk group showing significantly poorer overall survival.", "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:38249902"], "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:GSE13213"], "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:GSE13213"], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": []}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:38249902", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-23-1746", "sha256": "sha256:539aa492fc126e844c2f5938f0b6d5ec2f78307dda81bdff9b34344af767fe82", "bytes": 37726, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.21037/jtd-23-1746", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC10797339", "source": "europe_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body_without_references", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE13213", "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=GSE13213", "sha256": null, "bytes": null, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "GSE13213", "version": null, "note": "RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data along with clinical information including age, clinical stage, mutations, copy number variations, days to death, vital status, and more, were obtained from TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/).", "structure": {"repository": "GEO", "access_route": "GEO accession URL", "access_statement_verbatim": "RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data along with clinical information including age, clinical stage, mutations, copy number variations, days to death, vital status, and more, were obtained from TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/).", "access_statement_kind": "repository_route_statement", "sample_accessions": ["GSM333673", "GSM333674", "GSM333675", "GSM333676", "GSM333677", "GSM333678", "GSM333679", "GSM333680", "GSM333681", "GSM333682", "GSM333683", "GSM333684", "GSM333685", "GSM333686", "GSM333687", "GSM333688", "GSM333689", "GSM333690", "GSM333691", "GSM333692", "GSM333693", "GSM333694", "GSM333695", "GSM333696", "GSM333697", "GSM333698", "GSM333699", "GSM333700", "GSM333701", "GSM333702", "GSM333703", "GSM333704", "GSM333705", "GSM333706", "GSM333707", "GSM333708", "GSM333709", "GSM333710", "GSM333711", "GSM333712", "GSM333713", "GSM333714", "GSM333715", "GSM333716", "GSM333717", "GSM333718", "GSM333719", "GSM333720", "GSM333721", "GSM333722", "GSM333723", "GSM333724", "GSM333725", "GSM333726", "GSM333727", "GSM333728", "GSM333729", "GSM333730", "GSM333731", "GSM333732", "GSM333733", "GSM333734", "GSM333735", "GSM333736", "GSM333737", "GSM333738", "GSM333739", "GSM333740", "GSM333741", "GSM333742", "GSM333743", "GSM333744", "GSM333745", "GSM333746", "GSM333747", "GSM333748", "GSM333749", "GSM333750", "GSM333751", "GSM333752", "GSM333753", "GSM333754", "GSM333755", "GSM333756", "GSM333757", "GSM333758", "GSM333759", "GSM333760", "GSM333761", "GSM333762", "GSM333763", "GSM333764", "GSM333765", "GSM333766", "GSM333767", "GSM333768", "GSM333769", "GSM333770", "GSM333771", "GSM333772", "GSM333773", "GSM333774", "GSM333775", "GSM333776", "GSM333777", "GSM333778", "GSM333779", "GSM333780", "GSM333781", "GSM333782", "GSM333783", "GSM333784", "GSM333785", "GSM333786", "GSM333787", "GSM333788", "GSM333789"], "sample_count": 117, "group_sizes": null, "group_sizes_basis": null, "platform": "6480", "taxon": "Homo sapiens", "title": "Relapse-related molecular signature in lung adenocarcinomas identifies patients with dismal prognosis", "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:GSE13213 not downloaded", "asset:data:geo:GSE13213 licence not read"]}, "analysis": {"state": "complete", "methods": [{"id": "method-1", "family": "survival_analysis", "specific": "kaplan_meier", "label": "Survival analysis", "dsl_operations": ["survival_km"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["time_to_event_with_censoring"], "evidence": {"score": 1.0, "band": "verbatim", "quote": "The glmnet R package (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression for the purpose of identifying prognostic genes. To prevent overfitting, 10-fold cross-validation was employed to determine the penalized regularization parameter λ in the model."}}, {"id": "method-2", "family": "survival_analysis", "specific": "cox_proportional_hazards", "label": "Survival analysis", "dsl_operations": ["cox_ph"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {"hazard_ratio": "iables, including risk (HR =2"}, "data_shapes": ["time_to_event_with_censoring"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "Cox regression"}}, {"id": "method-3", "family": "survival_analysis", "specific": "log_rank_test", "label": "Survival analysis", "dsl_operations": ["logrank_test"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["time_to_event_with_censoring"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "log-rank"}}, {"id": "method-4", "family": "diagnostic_evaluation", "specific": "roc", "label": "Diagnostic test evaluation", "dsl_operations": ["confusion_counts", "roc_curve", "sensitivity_specificity", "solve_confusion_matrix", "classification_metrics", "published_precision_envelope"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["reference_standard_and_test"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "ROC curve"}}], "targets": [{"id": "target-published-estimate", "claim_id": "claim-target-result", "operation": "classification_metrics", "expected_value": 3.341, "unit": "hazard ratio", "tolerance": null, "state": "complete", "note": "The published estimate as the reader quoted it from the paper. No tolerance is published because the paper states none."}, {"id": "target-published-estimate-p-value", "claim_id": "claim-target-result", "operation": "classification_metrics", "expected_value": 1.0, "unit": "p-value", "tolerance": null, "state": "complete", "note": "The threshold the paper applied to its own result, as the paper states it. A run that reproduces the effect is judged against this threshold."}], "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": ["survival_km"], "missing_operations": [], "basis": "The paper names the method it used and the corpus's method extractor maps it onto the DSL catalogue: kaplan_meier."}, "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": ["GSE13213"], "resolved_accessions": ["GSE13213"], "statements": ["RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data along with clinical information including age, clinical stage, mutations, copy number variations, days to death, vital status, and more, were obtained from TCGA database (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/)."], "basis": "The paper names GSE13213 in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database and the accession resolves in the repository. No dataset was downloaded and no licence was read."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": ["survival_km"], "assets": ["source:pmid:38249902", "data:geo:GSE13213"], "steps": ["run_analysis"]}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:GSE13213"]}, "gaps": []}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-11-01T19:05:37Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": "verbatim", "availability": null}, "calls": 5, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 10284, "completion_tokens": 1878, "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:38249902", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:38249902"}, {"id": "source:pmid:38249902", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 38249902 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE13213", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO GSE13213"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:38249902", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:38249902"}, {"id": "source:pmid:38249902", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 38249902 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE13213", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO GSE13213"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-38249902", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:38249902"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-GSE13213", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:GSE13213"], "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:38249902", "parent_hash": "sha256:ddf968d1c20695d3309a4cdea5a02b6b75c339ee55f894898dac11b91e634440", "fork_of": null, "generation": 3}, "gaps": ["asset:data:geo:GSE13213 licence not read", "asset:data:geo:GSE13213 not downloaded", "execution.not_run", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique"], "assays": [{"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "rna_seq", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.99, "evidence": ["es remains unclear. Methods: RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data and clinical information were obtained", "DDR-related genes remains unclear. Methods: RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data and clinical information were", "Methods Statistical analysis The RNA-seq data, along with clinical information pertai"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:521", "id": "assay:1"}, {"role": "analysis", "definition_id": "survival_analysis", "definition_version": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": ["survival_km"], "support_state": "supported", "source_hashes": {"dsl_catalogue": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e"}, "confidence": 1.0, "evidence": ["The glmnet R package (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression for the purpose of identifying prognostic genes. To prevent overfitting, 10-fold cross-validation was employed to determine the penalized regularization parameter λ in the model."], "order_basis": "consumes_earlier_output", "id": "assay:2"}]},"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":"2026-11-04T04:15:40+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}}}