{"data":{"sci_version": "1.2", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:40308566", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 3, "content_hash": "sha256:faab68ae51f3eef6c65aac6d90b6d61fac0077243b51ee79e30bb13a7b870fb1", "created_at": "2026-11-01T20:30:27Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T22:13:59Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "run_id": "reading-sci-2026-11-01"}, "paper": {"state": "complete", "title": "Utilizing bioinformatics to identify biomarkers and analyze their expression in relation to immune cell ratios in femoral head necrosis.", "doi": "10.3389/fphys.2025.1373721", "pmid": "40308566", "authors": ["Dongchen Li", "Zhilong Huang", "Teng Ma", "Yu Su", "Zhao Li", "Liang Sun", "Ming Li", "Zhong Li", "Yao Li", "Qian Wang", "Yao Lu"], "journal": "Frontiers in physiology", "year": 2025, "abstract": "Background: Necrosis of the Femoral Head (NFH) represents a challenging orthopedic condition, characterized by elusive early detection and rapid progression, predominantly in the middle-aged demographic. Current research on the pathophysiological and immunoregulatory mechanisms underpinning immune cell infiltration in NFH is sparse. This study employs bioinformatics analysis of publicly available RNA sequencing databases to elucidate the pivotal molecules and pathways implicated in NFH progression.\nMethods: The NFH-related dataset GSE123568 was obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). Subsequently, CIBERSORT was utilized to assess the proportion and distribution of immune cell types, followed by the identification of critical Hub immune cells using LASSO and RFE algorithms. The dataset GSE123568 was then explored to identify significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs). These genes were further refined by intersecting with death-associated genes reported in existing literature. GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses were conducted to elucidate their underlying molecular mechanism. A protein-protein interaction (PPI) network was constructed using the STRING database and visualized via Cytoscape. Hub genes were identified using the CytoHubba plugin, followed by enrichment analysis, and their expression levels were evaluated using the ROC curve. In addition, we performed expression data visualization and ROC curve analysis on the external dataset GSE74089 to further evaluate the discriminative power of the hub genes. Moreover, the study analyzed the correlation between the identified hub genes and Hub immune cells. Finally, we verified the hub genes utilizing real-time fluorescence quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemistry.\nResults: Four types of immune cells (Neutrophil, Mast cell resting, Myeloid dendritic cell activated, Macrophage M0) were identified. Fourteen pivotal genes (BCL2L1, BIRC2, NFKBIA, XIAP, CFLAR, AKT1, BIRC3, IKBKB, RIPK1, CASP8, TNFRSF1A, IL1B, CASP1, STAT3) were identified, and the findings were validated using the external dataset GSE74089. Among these, STAT3 exhibited the most pronounced positive correlation with neutrophils (r = 0.6804, p = 3.525e-05). Conversely, XIAP displayed the most significant negative correlation with Myeloid dendritic cell activated (r = -0.3610, p = 0.04003). In experiments, the experimental outcomes for five hub genes (CASP8, TNFRSF1A, AKT1, XIAP and STAT3) were congruent with the results obtained from bioinformatics analysis.\nConclusion: Our study identified CASP8, TNFRSF1A, AKT1, XIAP, STAT3 and BCL2L1 as potential biomarkers for NFH patients and elucidated the immune cell types with the strongest association to these markers. These insights may be crucial for the early diagnosis, understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms, and the development of treatment strategies for NFH.", "claims": [{"id": "claim-method", "statement": "Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the differences in the distribution of different immune cells between NFH and CTRL.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:40308566", "locator": "sections[14] \"Statistical analysis\" paragraph 2", "quote": "Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the differences in the distribution of different immune cells between NFH and CTRL."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-data-access", "statement": "The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.", "kind": "methodological", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:40308566", "locator": "sections[28] \"Data availability statement\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material."}], "state": "complete"}, {"id": "claim-target-result", "statement": "Using CIBERSORT-inferred immune-cell proportions from GSE123568 and a Wilcoxon rank sum test, the study identified four hub immune cell types: Neutrophil, Mast cell resting, Myeloid dendritic cell activated, and Macrophage M0.", "kind": "qualitative", "target": null, "evidence": [{"asset": "source:pmid:40308566", "locator": "sections[5] \"Identification of hub immune cells\" paragraph 2", "quote": "The GSE123568 dataset served as the training set in this study, and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and recursive feature elimination (RFE) was used to screen the immune cell features. The procedural methodology was as follows: Initially, the lars package (v1.2) (Goeman, 2010) was instrumental in conducting regression analysis to identify specific combinations of immune cells. Subsequently, the RFE algorithm within the caret package (Deist et al., 2018) was utilized for further screening of these immune cell combinations. Ultimately, the immune cells identified by both algorithms were cross-referenced with those exhibiting significant distributional differences as determined by the Wilcoxon test, with the intersecting subset designated as the hub immune cells."}, {"asset": "source:pmid:40308566", "locator": "sections[17] \"Identification of hub immune cells\" paragraph 2", "quote": "By utilizing the LASSO and RFE algorithms, four immune cell types were identified: Neutrophil, Mast cell resting, Myeloid dendritic cell activated, and Macrophage M0 (Supplementary Table S4)."}], "state": "complete"}], "gaps": []}, "experiment": {"state": "partial", "objective": "Using CIBERSORT-inferred immune-cell proportions from GSE123568 and a Wilcoxon rank sum test, the study identified four hub immune cell types: Neutrophil, Mast cell resting, Myeloid dendritic cell activated, and Macrophage M0.", "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:40308566"], "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:GSE123568"], "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:group_comparison_wilcoxon", "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:GSE123568"], "outputs": ["the replicated result and its comparison"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": ["step:run_analysis blocked on method:group_comparison_wilcoxon"]}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:40308566", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1373721", "sha256": "sha256:d6db553ade0089a4d9d1b5df583c3c385fe6dea92e7bf26b386d8182027697b3", "bytes": 56341, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.3389/fphys.2025.1373721", "version": null, "note": "Full article fetched from PMC; the checksum covers the rendered section body, not the original XML bytes.", "structure": {"pmcid": "PMC12040900", "source": "europe_pmc_fulltext", "coverage": "whole_body", "text_hash_scope": "rendered_section_body"}}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE123568", "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=GSE123568", "sha256": null, "bytes": null, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "GSE123568", "version": null, "note": "The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.", "structure": {"repository": "GEO", "access_route": "GEO accession URL", "access_statement_verbatim": "The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.", "access_statement_kind": "data_availability_statement", "sample_accessions": ["GSM3507251", "GSM3507252", "GSM3507253", "GSM3507254", "GSM3507255", "GSM3507256", "GSM3507257", "GSM3507258", "GSM3507259", "GSM3507260", "GSM3507261", "GSM3507262", "GSM3507263", "GSM3507264", "GSM3507265", "GSM3507266", "GSM3507267", "GSM3507268", "GSM3507269", "GSM3507270", "GSM3507271", "GSM3507272", "GSM3507273", "GSM3507274", "GSM3507275", "GSM3507276", "GSM3507277", "GSM3507278", "GSM3507279", "GSM3507280", "GSM3507281", "GSM3507282", "GSM3507283", "GSM3507284", "GSM3507285", "GSM3507286", "GSM3507287", "GSM3507288", "GSM3507289", "GSM3507290"], "sample_count": 40, "group_sizes": null, "group_sizes_basis": null, "platform": "15207", "taxon": "Homo sapiens", "title": "Identification of Potential Biomarkers for Improving the Precision of Early Detection of Steroid-induced Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head", "resolution_checked_at": "2026-11-01T15:39:54Z", "resolution_check": "identifier_resolution_only_no_download_no_licence_read", "downloaded": false, "licence_read": false}}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE74089", "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=GSE74089", "sha256": null, "bytes": null, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "GSE74089", "version": null, "note": "The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.", "structure": {"repository": "GEO", "access_route": "GEO accession URL", "access_statement_verbatim": "The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.", "access_statement_kind": "data_availability_statement", "sample_accessions": ["GSM1909502", "GSM1909503", "GSM1909504", "GSM1909505", "GSM1909506", "GSM1909507", "GSM1909508", "GSM1909509"], "sample_count": 8, "group_sizes": null, "group_sizes_basis": null, "platform": "13497", "taxon": "Homo sapiens", "title": "Gene expression profiling of hip cartilage with necrosis of femoral head", "resolution_checked_at": "2026-11-01T15:39:55Z", "resolution_check": "identifier_resolution_only_no_download_no_licence_read", "downloaded": false, "licence_read": false}}], "gaps": ["asset:data:geo:GSE123568 not downloaded", "asset:data:geo:GSE123568 licence not read", "asset:data:geo:GSE74089 not downloaded", "asset:data:geo:GSE74089 licence not read"]}, "analysis": {"state": "partial", "methods": [{"id": "method-1", "family": "group_comparison", "specific": "wilcoxon", "label": "Group comparison", "dsl_operations": [], "missing_operations": ["group_comparison_wilcoxon"], "expressible": false, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["two_or_more_groups_continuous"], "evidence": {"score": 1.0, "band": "verbatim", "quote": "Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the differences in the distribution of different immune cells between NFH and CTRL."}}, {"id": "method-2", "family": "group_comparison", "specific": "student_t_test", "label": "Group comparison", "dsl_operations": [], "missing_operations": ["student_t"], "expressible": false, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["two_or_more_groups_continuous"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "Student's t-test"}}, {"id": "method-3", "family": "machine_learning", "specific": "support_vector_machine", "label": "Machine learning", "dsl_operations": ["train_classifier", "cross_validate", "roc_auc"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["labelled_feature_matrix"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "SVM"}}, {"id": "method-4", "family": "correlation_analysis", "specific": "pearson", "label": "Correlation analysis", "dsl_operations": ["pearson_r"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["paired_numeric_columns"], "evidence": {"score": 0.8, "band": "high", "quote": "Pearson correlation"}}, {"id": "method-5", "family": "network_analysis", "specific": "ppi_network", "label": "Network / pathway analysis", "dsl_operations": ["build_graph", "centrality_scores", "pathway_enrich"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["edge_list"], "evidence": {"score": 0.7, "band": "medium", "quote": "protein-protein interaction"}}, {"id": "method-6", "family": "network_analysis", "specific": "pathway_enrichment", "label": "Network / pathway analysis", "dsl_operations": ["pathway_enrich"], "missing_operations": [], "expressible": true, "parameters": {}, "data_shapes": ["edge_list"], "evidence": {"score": 0.7, "band": "medium", "quote": "pathway enrichment"}}, {"id": "method-7", "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": 0.7, "band": "medium", "quote": "ROC curve"}}], "targets": [], "gaps": ["method.group_comparison_wilcoxon"]}, "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": false, "required_operations": [], "missing_operations": ["group_comparison_wilcoxon"], "basis": "The paper names the method it used and the corpus's method extractor maps it onto the DSL catalogue: wilcoxon."}, "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": ["GSE123568", "GSE74089"], "resolved_accessions": ["GSE123568", "GSE74089"], "statements": ["The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material."], "basis": "The paper names GSE123568, GSE74089 in NCBI GEO database and the accession resolves in the repository. No dataset was downloaded and no licence was read."}}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": [], "assets": ["source:pmid:40308566", "data:geo:GSE123568"], "steps": []}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [{"operation": "group_comparison_wilcoxon", "unlocks_papers": null, "priority": null}], "converters": [], "readers": [], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["data:geo:GSE123568"]}, "gaps": []}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"kind": "extraction_review", "reader": {"model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "provider": "minimax", "provider_family": "minimax", "read_at": "2026-11-01T19:51:35Z", "independence": "single_reader"}, "evidence_check": {"method": "verbatim", "availability": "verbatim"}, "calls": 5, "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 16291, "completion_tokens": 1720, "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:40308566", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:40308566"}, {"id": "source:pmid:40308566", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 40308566 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE123568", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO GSE123568"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity-reading-sci-2026-11-01", "type": "classification", "used": [{"id": "pmid:40308566", "type": "paper", "label": "pmid:40308566"}, {"id": "source:pmid:40308566", "type": "manuscript", "label": "PMID 40308566 full text"}, {"id": "data:geo:GSE123568", "type": "dataset", "label": "GEO GSE123568"}], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}, {"id": "activity-read-40308566", "type": "extraction", "used": ["source:pmid:40308566"], "agent": "agent:minimax-reader"}, {"id": "activity-resolve-GSE123568", "type": "accession_resolution", "used": ["data:geo:GSE123568"], "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:40308566", "parent_hash": "sha256:6956fc5ca6e420f22b9650a8949fdbae0b8e4568f98a80b79d249b22e5b47fa0", "fork_of": null, "generation": 2}, "gaps": ["asset:data:geo:GSE123568 licence not read", "asset:data:geo:GSE123568 not downloaded", "asset:data:geo:GSE74089 licence not read", "asset:data:geo:GSE74089 not downloaded", "execution.not_run", "method.group_comparison_wilcoxon", "review.human_critique", "review.independent_reader", "review.machine_critique", "step:run_analysis blocked on method:group_comparison_wilcoxon"], "assays": [{"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "qpcr", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.99, "evidence": ["ence quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemistry. Results: Four typ", "e quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemistry. Results: Four typ"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:1856", "id": "assay:1"}, {"role": "data_generation", "definition_id": "ihc", "definition_version": "99e1195c7d6f", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"assay_lexicon": "99e1195c7d6f"}, "confidence": 0.99, "evidence": ["tive polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunohistochemistry. Results: Four types of immune cells (Neutro", "biomarkers expression levels in qRT-PCR and immunohistochemistry results were analyzed using the independent"], "order_basis": "paper_text_order:1869", "id": "assay:2"}, {"role": "analysis", "definition_id": "group_comparison", "definition_version": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e", "definition_digest": null, "required_operations": [], "support_state": "partial", "source_hashes": {"dsl_catalogue": "f2132e96ae6c7a4e"}, "confidence": 1.0, "evidence": ["Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the differences in the distribution of different immune cells between NFH and CTRL."], "order_basis": "consumes_earlier_output", "id": "assay:3"}]},"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":"2026-11-04T02:14:50+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}}}