{"data":{"sci_version": "1.2", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:38406803", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 4, "content_hash": "sha256:47928d7850970459c18246e3d185ef621094baf33ce1cc0cb5b1eaaa81ab8ac9", "created_at": "2026-11-01T19:20:21Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T22:53:46Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "An immune-related gene prognostic prediction risk model for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer using artificial intelligence.", "doi": "10.3389/fonc.2024.1294440", "pmid": "38406803", "authors": ["Pei Shu", "Ning Liu", "Xu Luo", "Yuanling Tang", "Zhebin Chen", "Dandan Li", "Dong Miao", "Jiayu Duan", "Ouying Yan", "Leiming Sheng", "Ganlu Ouyang", "Sen Wang", "Dan Jiang", "Xiangbing Deng", "Ziqiang Wang", "Qingyun Li", "Xin Wang"], "journal": "Frontiers in oncology", "year": 2024, "abstract": "Background: This study aimed to establish and validate a prognostic model based on immune-related genes (IRGPM) for predicting disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and to elucidate the immune profiles associated with different prognostic outcomes.\nMethods: Transcriptomic and clinical data were sourced from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database and the West China Hospital database. We focused on genes from the RNA immune-oncology panel. The elastic net approach was employed to pinpoint immune-related genes significantly impacting DFS. We developed the IRGPM for rectal cancer using the random forest technique. Based on the IRGPM, we calculated prognostic risk scores to categorize patients into high-risk and low-risk groups. Comparative analysis of immune characteristics between these groups was conducted.\nResults: In this study, 407 LARC samples were analyzed. The elastic net identified a signature of 20 immune-related genes, forming the basis of the IRGPM. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a lower 5-year DFS in the high-risk group compared to the low-risk group. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve affirmed the model's robust predictive capability. Validation of the model was performed in the GSE190826 cohort and our institution's cohort. Gene expression differences between high-risk and low-risk groups predominantly related to cytokine-cytokine receptor interactions. Notably, the low-risk group exhibited higher immune scores. Further analysis indicated a greater presence of activated B cells, activated CD8 T cells, central memory CD8 T cells, macrophages, T follicular helper cells, and type 2 helper cells in the low-risk group. Additionally, immune checkpoint analysis revealed elevated PDCD1 expression in the low-risk group.\nConclusions: The IRGPM, developed through random forest and elastic net methodologies, demonstrates potential in distinguishing DFS among LARC patients receiving standard treatment. Notably, the low-risk group, as defined by the IRGPM, showed enhanced activation of adaptive immune responses within the tumor microenvironment.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-method", "statement": "To obtain the optimal panel, elastic net logistic regression was carried out on the candidate genes. We screened a 20-gene signature with the best concordance index ( Figure 2A ). Then, we constructed the optimized prognostic model by using the random forest method, which assigned each sample a prognostic risk score based on the identified coefficient of each gene ( Figure 2B ; details in Supplementary Table S4 ).", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:38406803", "locator": "sections[11] \"Prognostic risk model construction\" paragraph 2", "quote": "To obtain the optimal panel, elastic net logistic regression was carried out on the candidate genes. We screened a 20-gene signature with the best concordance index ( Figure 2A ). Then, we constructed the optimized prognostic model by using the random forest method, which assigned each sample a prognostic risk score based on the identified coefficient of each gene ( Figure 2B ; details in Supplementary Table S4 )."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-data-access", "statement": "The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:38406803", "locator": "sections[18] \"Data availability statement\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-target-result", "statement": "The Kaplan−Meier curves showed that the low-risk group was associated with a significantly longer median disease-free survival (mDFS) than the high-risk group (unreached vs. 20 months; p< 0.0001; hazard ratio (HR), 0.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.03–0.11; Figure 2C ).", "kind": "quantitative", "target": {"value": 95.0, "unit": "per cent", "tolerance": null, "source": "The Kaplan−Meier curves showed that the low-risk group was associated with a significantly longer median disease-free survival (mDFS) than the high-risk group (unreached vs. 20 months; p< 0.0001; hazard ratio (HR), 0.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.03–0.11; Figure 2C )."}, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:38406803", "locator": "sections[11] \"Prognostic risk model construction\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The Kaplan−Meier curves showed that the low-risk group was associated with a significantly longer median disease-free survival (mDFS) than the high-risk group (unreached vs. 20 months; p< 0.0001; hazard ratio (HR), 0.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.03–0.11; Figure 2C )."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "partial", "objective": "The Kaplan−Meier curves showed that the low-risk group was associated with a significantly longer median disease-free survival (mDFS) than the high-risk group (unreached vs. 20 months; p< 0.0001; hazard ratio (HR), 0.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.03–0.11; Figure 2C ).", "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:38406803"], "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": "blocked", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "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": [], "outputs": ["the source data with its repository provenance"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "run_analysis", "order": 3, "name": "Run the published analysis", "kind": "analysis", "state": "blocked", "blocked_on": "method:machine_learning_random_forest", "description": "Apply the paper's statistical method to the resolved series and compare the result with the published target.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": ["step:run_analysis blocked on method:machine_learning_random_forest", "step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent"]}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:38406803", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1294440", "sha256": "sha256:aa51439a7e18583795f6e8b92540a19eaf821fbc6e827b7da5c326e27563594d", "bytes": 46064, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.3389/fonc.2024.1294440", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC10889124", "source": "europe_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}], "gaps": []}, "analysis": {"state": "partial", "methods": [{"id": "method-1", "family": "machine_learning", "specific": "random_forest", "label": "Machine learning", "dsl_operations": [], "missing_operations": ["machine_learning_random_forest"], "expressible": false, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["labelled_feature_matrix"], "evidence": {"score": 1.0, "band": "verbatim", "quote": "To obtain the optimal panel, elastic net logistic regression was carried out on the candidate genes. We screened a 20-gene signature with the best concordance index ( Figure 2A ). Then, we constructed the optimized prognostic model by using the random forest method, which assigned each sample a prognostic risk score based on the identified coefficient of each gene ( Figure 2B ; details in Supplementary Table S4 )."}}, {"id": "method-2", "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": 0.7, "band": "medium", "quote": "Kaplan-Meier"}}, {"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": "regression_modelling", "specific": "logistic", "label": "Regression modelling", "dsl_operations": ["glm_logit_fit"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["predictors_and_outcome"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "logistic regression"}}], "targets": [{"id": "target-published-estimate", "claim_id": "claim-target-result", "operation": "glm_logit_fit", "expected_value": 95.0, "unit": "per cent", "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": "glm_logit_fit", "expected_value": 0.0001, "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": ["method.reader_differs_from_extractor", "method.machine_learning_random_forest"]}, "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": "blocked", "tier": "R4", "blocking_axis": "data", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "axes": {"method": {"tier": "R1", "expressible": false, "required_operations": [], "missing_operations": ["machine_learning_random_forest"], "basis": "The paper names the method it used and the corpus's method extractor maps it onto the DSL catalogue: random_forest."}, "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": "R4", "reachable": false, "accessions": [], "resolved_accessions": [], "statements": ["The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s."], "basis": "The paper names no accession to its source data, so the data has to come from the authors."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": [], "assets": ["source:pmid:38406803"], "steps": []}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [{"operation": "machine_learning_random_forest", "unlocks_papers": null, "priority": null}], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:None"]}, "gaps": ["data:accession_absent"]}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-11-01T19:10:12Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": "verbatim", "availability": "verbatim"}, "calls": 5, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 13300, "completion_tokens": 2059, "cached_tokens": 256}}, "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:38406803", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:38406803"}, {"id": "source:pmid:38406803", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 38406803 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:38406803", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:38406803"}, {"id": "source:pmid:38406803", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 38406803 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:None", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO None"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-38406803", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:38406803"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-None", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:None"], "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:38406803", "parent_hash": "sha256:66e3fa8f91146bea8f73c9ce63ed1337a843b9da42dace4f526b66710a4ddd16", "fork_of": null, "generation": 3}, "gaps": ["execution.not_run", "method.machine_learning_random_forest", "method.reader_differs_from_extractor", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent", "step:run_analysis blocked on method:machine_learning_random_forest"], "assays": [{"role": "analysis", "definition_id": "machine_learning", "definition_version": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"dsl_catalogue": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e"}, "confidence": 1.0, "evidence": ["To obtain the optimal panel, elastic net logistic regression was carried out on the candidate genes. We screened a 20-gene signature with the best concordance index ( Figure 2A ). Then, we constructed the optimized prognostic model by using the random forest method, which assigned each sample a prognostic risk score based on the identified coefficient of each gene ( Figure 2B ; details in Supplementary Table S4 )."], "order_basis": "analysis_only", "id": "assay:1"}]},"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":"2026-11-04T03:37:31+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}}}