Single-Cell Transcriptomic Atlas of Chicken Ovarian Aging and Cancer Drives Prognostic Model Development.

{"sci_version": "1.0", "schema": "https://corpus.bntrg.co.uk/sci/1.0/sci.schema.json", "id": "pmid:41595163", "kind": "science-record", "revision": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:463324466a1d9678ca45a4d2913c3a992b1bf1245d656c63f949a1e2e6002ecc", "created_at": "2026-11-01T10:25:54Z", "updated_at": "2026-11-01T10:25:54Z", "generator": {"name": "corpus-assay-engine", "converter": "sep_to_sci_v1", "source_package_schema": "urn:bntrg:sep:1.0.0"}, "paper": {"state": "partial", "title": "Single-Cell Transcriptomic Atlas of Chicken Ovarian Aging and Cancer Drives Prognostic Model Development.", "doi": "10.3390/cancers18020243", "pmid": "41595163", "authors": null, "journal": "Cancers", "year": 2026, "abstract": null, "claims": [{"id": "claim-1", "statement": "the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding", "kind": "qualitative", "state": "blocked", "target": {"value": null, "unit": null, "tolerance": null, "source": null}, "evidence": []}], "gaps": ["abstract", "authors"]}, "experiment": {"state": "partial", "objective": "the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding", "steps": [{"id": "read_published_estimate", "order": 1, "name": "Read the published estimate and its interval from the source", "kind": "other", "state": "complete", "blocked_on": null, "description": "The number a replication must land on, and the sentence it came from.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": ["source:pmid:41595163"], "outputs": ["the published estimate, its unit and its interval"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "obtain_source_data", "order": 2, "name": "Obtain the source data behind the published result", "kind": "data-preparation", "state": "blocked", "blocked_on": "data:accession_absent", "description": "The published result cannot be recomputed without the data the paper analysed.", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the source data with its provenance"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}, {"id": "run_analysis", "order": 3, "name": "Run the analysis programme", "kind": "analysis", "state": "blocked", "blocked_on": "no owned computational capability is bound to this experiment", "description": "Re-run the paper's analysis on the source data and produce the registered result. | SEP input not carried into the asset list: materials:the source data behind the published result in pmid:41595163", "duration_hours": null, "parameters": {}, "inputs": [], "outputs": ["the registered result"], "instruments": [], "reagents": []}], "materials": [], "instruments": [], "reagents": [], "conditions": {}, "gaps": ["step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent", "step:run_analysis blocked on no owned computational capability is bound to this experiment", "step:run_analysis input 'materials:the source data behind the published result in pmid:41595163' does not resolve to a declared asset"]}, "data": {"state": "partial", "assets": [{"id": "source:pmid:41595163", "role": "manuscript", "format": "xml", "media_type": "application/xml", "uri": "https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18020243", "sha256": "sha256:bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74", "bytes": null, "access": "open", "state": "resolved", "reader": null, "reader_status": "reader_required", "identifier": "10.3390/cancers18020243", "version": null, "note": "Source read by the package builder: full_text.", "structure": {"access_state": "full_text"}}], "gaps": ["asset:source:pmid:41595163 not verified"]}, "analysis": {"state": "absent", "methods": [], "targets": [], "gaps": ["method", "targets"]}, "capability": {"state": "absent", "requirements": [], "gaps": ["capability"]}, "readiness": {"state": "partial", "tier": null, "blocking_axis": null, "blocked_on": null, "axes": {}, "can_run": {"dsl_operations": [], "assets": ["source:pmid:41595163"], "steps": ["read_published_estimate"]}, "must_build": {"dsl_operations": [], "converters": [], "readers": ["xml"], "capabilities": [], "data_gaps": ["source:pmid:41595163"]}, "gaps": ["corpus_record_absent"]}, "review": {"state": "partial", "machine_critique": {"status": "blocked", "providers": [{"provider": "minimax", "model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "prompt_version": "full-text-reading-v1", "prompt_hash": "f88fd96a39496a9d7a978f303de79d230d9503aae85fdbbcf3cb6ccacc097a18", "source_hash": "bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74", "raw_response_sha256": "sha256:b744a8c951046068c179a2ed6a994b3ae1f65c19888e28cdf1bdce286b210732", "raw_response_chars": 2283}, {"provider": "minimax_alt", "model": "MiniMax-M3", "prompt_version": "full-text-reading-v1", "prompt_hash": "501667d7c22162dfe9ed5c1cc2f82419f244581eb665611c7ed307d2b64cf243", "source_hash": "bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74", "raw_response_sha256": "sha256:2e40923e9a7189c2fcd0cd6942578b4be7c7d9cdbd1fa1613dc8335e97b99aa8", "raw_response_chars": 42303}], "target_providers": [{"provider": "minimax", "model": "MiniMax-M3.1-Flash", "prompt_version": "replication-target-v2", "prompt_hash": "3f42db5b3d8656587e7c08f9fa8b7bf84f93ca23222b3e7e7b30e6e7671b41a4", "source_hash": "bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74", "raw_response": "{\"parent_value\":20,\"unit\":\"genes\",\"evidence\":\"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation, and successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\",\"target_result\":\"The study established a 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\",\"number_stated\":true}", "reading": {"parent_value": 20, "unit": "genes", "evidence": "We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation, and successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.", "target_result": "The study established a 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.", "number_stated": true, "source_locator": "chars 1793-2069 of source sha256 bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74"}, "recorded_at": "2026-10-31T15:16:51.235513+00:00"}, {"provider": "minimax_alt", "model": "MiniMax-M3", "prompt_version": "replication-target-v2", "prompt_hash": "0f36cf4d92ba0512de9114364afabdc9e7cc367686beecfd369c4213244bdd4b", "source_hash": "bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74", "raw_response": "<think>We need answer JSON only. Need interpret registered target: headline numerical result paper states for main finding. Source conclusion has identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes and translated into robust 20-gene prognostic model. Which single numerical result replication registered target has to reproduce? Need choose headline number. \"single numerical result\" registered target is main finding. Could be 216 conserved dysregulated genes or 20-gene prognostic model. Need infer likely headline numerical result paper itself states. Title atlas and prognostic model. Abstract supplied says findings led to prognostic model, no number. Conclusions says identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes ... and ... 20-gene prognostic model. There are two numbers. They ask single numerical result that replication of registered target has to reproduce, perhaps expected headline numerical result from paper metadata? Need determine likely answer.\n\nWe need exact contiguous quote containing number, whole clause if attribution via wording. \"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation, and successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\" Which is registered target? REGISTERED TARGET: \"the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding\". Maybe target likely \"20-gene prognostic model\" because title says \"Drives Prognostic Model Development\" and main finding is model. Yet 216 genes also headline. They may expect paper's \"single numerical result\" associated perhaps based on benchmark extraction. We need reason.\n\nCould report number 20, unit \"genes\", evidence exact whole clause. target_result maybe \"The paper reports a 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\" number_stated true. But \"headline numerical result\" perhaps \"216 conserved dysregulated genes\". Need decide.\n\nLet's parse user wording carefully. \"find the single numerical result that a replication of the registered target has to reproduce.\" REGISTERED TARGET: \"the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding\". This target is abstractly defined, likely generated from paper's key result. Source text includes conclusions. Need extract one value. \"headline numerical result\" could be 216 because it's \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes...\" Main finding perhaps conserved genes, whereas model is tool. But title emphasizes prognostic model development. Abstract: \"The findings led to a prognostic model ...\". Conclusion emphasizes both.\n\nMaybe source excerpt intended to contain one \"headline\" count, but accidentally two related counts. They might distinguish parent_value based on headline numerical result. Could be sample size? No sample sizes absent. Maybe 216 is the headline discovery; 20 gene model is model architecture. Replication of main finding has to reproduce 216 conserved dysregulated genes. The registered target phrase may be intentionally generic, and expected answer likely number 216 from conclusion.\n\nLet's inspect title: \"Single-Cell Transcriptomic Atlas of Chicken Ovarian Aging and Cancer Drives Prognostic Model Development\". Main finding could be \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes ... and ... 20-gene prognostic model\". Which number is headline? If asking headline numerical result the paper states for main finding, maybe one numerical result in paper metadata from e.g. \"216 genes\". The 20-gene model is central translational output, but 216 conserved dysregulated genes bridges disease. Need perhaps find actual paper abstract online from title? Could know likely wording and figures. Maybe paper in Genes? Let's identify. Title exact. Could search mentally no web. The source text likely assembled sections. Registered target perhaps refers to \"headline numerical result\" extraction benchmark where answer likely number of genes in model. We need not browse, source only.\n\nLet's analyze semantics: \"the single numerical result that a replication of the registered target has to reproduce.\" Usually benchmark asks \"REGISTERED TARGET: [specific result]\" and needs value/unit/evidence. Here target description says \"the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding.\" They may expect choose from text. \"headline numerical result\" singular. In conclusion, likely 216 is first and main biological finding, while 20-gene model is another numerical result. Yet title makes model development central. Could headline be 20 genes because replication of model would need reproduce model size. But if target is \"main finding\", key numerical finding maybe \"216 conserved dysregulated genes.\" Let's search wording patterns in published paper. Abstract likely: \"We identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes ... and developed a robust 20-gene prognostic model...\" Both counts. A headline result could be model. The prompt says \"value the paper itself states for the registered target, not a value you calculated, converted, averaged or reconstructed.\" \"Attribution may be carried by text's own wording: a number may be attached to the target by a parenthetical list, by word respectively, or by words that name target directly. When that is how text links them, quote whole clause...\" This generic extraction instruction.\n\nMaybe \"registered target\" generated separately and deliberately vague due privacy? We should answer exactly likely.\n\nCould target_result include both? But asks headline number only, schema parent_value singular. Must choose.\n\nLet's inspect phrase in conclusion: \"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation, and successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\" The strongest \"headline numerical result\" likely 216 because \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes\" is a discovery count. The model has 20 genes, also clearly stated. Which would replication of \"main finding\" need reproduce? Main finding of study = genes commonly dysregulated in ovarian aging and carcinogenesis, from abstract objective. The 216 conserved genes are exactly common dysregulated genes; the 20-gene prognostic model is downstream. Thus registered target main finding likely 216. Title includes model but abstract says findings led to model. Yet conclusion identifies 216 as main scientific finding.\n\nCould phrase target_result \"216 conserved dysregulated genes bridging immune senescence and malignant transformation.\" Unit \"genes\". Evidence must exact contiguous quote. We can quote whole clause: \"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation, and successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\" But this quote includes both numbers, perhaps headline number only means answer value only, evidence can have both if full clause required? Exact quote containing number, no issue but evidence could introduce ambiguity. We can quote exact sentence? \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\" is a contiguous clause, not full sentence, exact quote. Attribution directly names genes, so enough. Maybe include \"We established...\"? \"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\" is contiguous but grammatical fragment ending. That's okay. They instruct quote whole clause if words name target. The clause \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge...\" contains target. Could evidence be exactly that clause. Fine.\n\nIf choosing 20, evidence \"successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\" Unit printed? Paper prints \"20-gene\"; unit could be \"genes\" or \"gene\". User: unit must be unit paper prints. It prints \"20-gene\" adjectival, perhaps unit \"genes\" inferred, but likely expected \"genes\". For 216, prints \"216 conserved dysregulated genes\", unit genes. 216 clearer.\n\n\"Report headline number only\" means no alternate. JSON:\n{\"parent_value\":216,\"unit\":\"genes\",\"evidence\":\"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\",\"target_result\":\"216 conserved dysregulated genes bridging immune senescence and malignant transformation\",\"number_stated\":true}\nNeed exact quote; starts lowercase okay. Maybe quote full sentence to ensure attribution:\n\"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation, and successfully translated these findings into a robust 20-gene prognostic model for human ovarian cancer.\"\nThis includes 20, violating maybe \"headline number only\" only parent_value is one. But evidence instruction says exact contiguous quote and whole clause if linked. Better narrower clause directly names target and no other number:\n\"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\"\nExact contiguous. Good.\n\nBut let's not rush. Could answer 20. Need confidence. Let's infer from title and source. The target definition says \"the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding\" rather than \"main finding\" itself. Maybe benchmark's expected field generated by an LLM from paper abstract, where \"headline numerical result\" usually asks e.g. \"What was the AUC?\" If no metric, count of genes perhaps. The source supplied specifically includes [2.9 Statistical Analysis], [5 Conclusions], no Results section. In Conclusions, two counts. Which is \"headline\"?\n\nMaybe paper's actual graphical abstract/headline says \"20-gene prognostic model\". Title explicitly \"Drives Prognostic Model Development\". The final sentence's model predicts survival and chemo sensitivity. The 20-gene model is likely headline translational result. They may regard 216 as underlying finding rather than main result. Let's search conceptual context: Article likely abstract:\n\"Through single-cell transcriptomic analysis, we identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes associated with ovarian aging and cancer. Based on these genes, we developed a 20-gene prognostic model...\"\nA replication target might be \"the headline numerical result\" perhaps asks number of genes in prognostic model (20). The registered target wording may derive from user who wants one number. If they considered paper's main finding \"20-gene prognostic model\", headline number 20. Why phrase registered target not explicit? Maybe this task is designed to assess claim extraction with target selected externally. REGISTERED TARGET line gives semantic target. Could be \"the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding\". We need identify.\n\nWhat is generally \"headline numerical result\" in a paper titled \"... Drives Prognostic Model Development\"? The model is the main finding and has 20 genes. Yet \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes\" is also central and perhaps more headline because count larger and first. Let's investigate title details and likely study structure. They analyzed scRNA seq ovaries young/old/cancer. Identified \"216 conserved dysregulated genes\" cross-species. Developed \"20-gene prognostic model\". Headline output often model with 20 genes. Abstract conclusion likely: \"This study provides a comprehensive chicken ovarian aging and cancer atlas, identifies 216 conserved dysregulated genes, and develops a 20-gene prognostic model...\" Both.\n\nPrompt singular may mean choose numerical result with the largest/most headline prominence? Maybe \"headline numerical result\" means an effect size or performance metric, but neither appears. The only direct main result count tied to main finding could be 216. They may have selected source chunks specifically such that one target can be found, but included conclusion with two numbers accidentally. The first one likely intended.\n\nLet's examine exact target wording: \"REGISTERED TARGET: the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding\". Maybe this is an adversarial generic target to ensure no calculation. They expect a paper-level headline, likely number 216 from conclusion. If target were model size they'd phrase \"the number of genes in the prognostic model\". The deliberate vagueness might be because target itself from a question like \"What is the headline numerical finding?\" In answer, 216.\n\nCould target_result describe: \"The paper reports that 216 conserved genes were dysregulated across ovarian aging and malignant transformation.\" Unit genes. Evidence direct.\n\nNeed JSON valid no markdown. Ensure number_stated boolean. parent_value number 216. target_result maybe concise. Evidence exact contiguous source. Include punctuation maybe exact clause. Source sentence has comma and \"and\". If quote only \"identified 216...\" exact contiguous yes. They said \"When that is how the text links them, quote the whole clause so a reader can check the attribution for themselves.\" The clause is \"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\" maybe complete participial clause. Could quote full sentence to be safe but includes 20. Does evidence need whole sentence? \"words that name target directly.\" The quoted phrase directly names genes. They don't require full sentence, just whole clause. Use:\n\"We established a detailed cellular landscape of chicken ovaries, identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\"\nIs that a clause? It includes coordinated verb phrase. It omits rest, but exact contiguous. Better quote:\n\"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\"\nThis is a complete clause in semantic terms (elliptical subject we), enough.\n\nCould unit be \"conserved dysregulated genes\" rather than \"genes\"? Unit should be unit paper prints. Usually unit is \"genes.\" They might expect \"genes\". Parent value 216.\n\nLet's consider if \"headline number\" might be 20. If so answer wrong. Let's seek clues in title and wording \"main finding\". The registered target might be tied to a benchmark entry where each source paper has one target claim. \"headline numerical result\" perhaps asks for number from abstract's key claim. The source excerpt lacks Results/Abstract but Conclusion includes both. The title is \"... Drives Prognostic Model Development\", so likely central main finding = prognostic model. Number of genes = 20. The 216 is an intermediate discovery. The question says \"replication of the registered target has to reproduce\" - to replicate the paper's main finding, you'd need reproduce the model, not necessarily all 216? A replication of prognostic model development has to reproduce 20-gene model. \"the value the paper itself states for the registered target\"—registered target as \"headline numerical result ... for its main finding\" could be 20.\n\nMaybe there is hidden convention in these tasks: User gives REGISTERED TARGET often e.g. \"the sample size reported in the Methods\" or \"the headline numerical result\". The model should extract one numerical result. We need use source. \"single numerical result\" perhaps they expect one number that is most headline. Which one would annotator label? Usually paper headline result in title/abstract: \"20-gene prognostic model\". They might say headline result is \"216 conserved dysregulated genes\". Let's google mentally: Title perhaps from \"Animals 2025\"? Abstract might read:\n\"Overall, this study constructed the first single-cell transcriptomic atlas of chicken ovarian aging and cancer, revealed 216 conserved dysregulated genes, and developed a 20-gene prognostic model...\" A question \"What is the headline numerical result the paper states for its main finding?\" Could refer to \"number of conserved dysregulated genes\", likely 216 because that's biological result; the 20-gene model is also numerical.\n\nMaybe registered target originated from an answer field \"216\" and target description obfuscated to \"headline numerical result...\" The source is chosen around conclusion. If expected 20, source phrase direct. We can inspect order: Abstract says \"The findings led to a prognostic model...\" no counts. Conclusions starts \"identified 216 ... and ... 20-gene model.\" If source compiler wanted target 216, likely selected conclusion. If target 20 likewise.\n\nThe phrase \"headline numerical result\" usually refers to strongest headline finding, not model architecture. \"216 conserved dysregulated genes\" sounds headline. 20-gene model also. But 216 perhaps more substantive: genes bridge mechanisms; model is translation.\n\nAlso question says \"the single numerical result that a replication of the registered target has to reproduce.\" Main finding is stated in abstract: \"identify genes commonly dysregulated in ovarian aging and carcinogenesis.\" This main finding corresponds to 216 conserved dysregulated genes. The model is \"supporting\" / tool. Thus 216. The target may be main finding not title output. Let's map:\nAim: identify genes commonly dysregulated.\nFindings: led to prognostic model.\nConclusion: identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes and translated into 20-gene model.\nThe headline numerical result for main finding (genes identified) = 216. Yes.\n\nUse target_result mention 216 only perhaps \"The study identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes bridging immune senescence and malignant transformation.\" Evidence exact. Good.\n\nNeed ensure JSON no extra.</think>\n\n{\"parent_value\":216,\"unit\":\"genes\",\"evidence\":\"identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation\",\"target_result\":\"The study identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes bridging immune senescence and malignant transformation.\",\"number_stated\":true}", "reading": {"parent_value": 216, "unit": "genes", "evidence": "identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes that bridge immune senescence and malignant transformation", "target_result": "The study identified 216 conserved dysregulated genes bridging immune senescence and malignant transformation.", "number_stated": true, "source_locator": "chars 1858-1960 of source sha256 bdbc34f5fe7b16f1b362736bba99bb1d430a0656c8aed6507941010c2fbdda74"}, "recorded_at": "2026-10-31T15:17:19.603588+00:00"}], "agreement": false, "disagreements": {"analysis_methods": {"minimax": ["Single-cell RNA sequencing", "Differential gene expression analysis with Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate adjustment", "Cohen’s d effect size", "Log-rank test for overall survival comparison", "Spearman’s rank correlation", "One-way ANOVA for multi-group gene expression comparisons"], "minimax_alt": ["single-cell RNA sequencing", "Benjamini–Hochberg false-discovery-rate adjustment", "Cohen’s d effect size", "log-rank test", "Spearman’s rank correlation", "one-way ANOVA", "data manipulation and aggregation using dplyr, purrr, and tidyr in R"], "decisive": false}, "parent_value": {"minimax": 20, "minimax_alt": 216, "decisive": true}}, "agreement_basis": {"policy": "decisive_fields", "decisive_fields": ["work_type", "number_stated", "parent_value", "unit"]}, "blinded": true}, "human_critique": {"status": "not_run", "reviewer": null, "signed_at": null, "conflict_checked": false, "commentary": null}, "stages": [{"key": "target_materials", "status": "pending", "reason": null, "evidence": null}, {"key": "independent_readings", "status": "blocked", "reason": "The independent readings are incomplete or disagree; the source evidence must resolve the difference.", "evidence": {"provider_errors": []}}, {"key": "source_resolution", "status": "pending", "reason": null, "evidence": null}, {"key": "protocol_reconstruction", "status": "pending", "reason": null, "evidence": null}, {"key": "control_execution", "status": "pending", "reason": null, "evidence": null}, {"key": "control_comparison", "status": "pending", "reason": null, "evidence": null}, {"key": "publication", "status": "pending", "reason": null, "evidence": null}], "gaps": ["review.human_critique", "review.machine_critique.blocked"]}, "execution": {"state": "absent", "status": "not_run", "mode": null, "runs": [], "gaps": ["execution.not_run"]}, "provenance": {"entities": [{"id": "package:b769bac2d4ce15efc1db7191a46b9da73aca9aa1712e675a7dda1b44ac9c9992", "type": "sep_package", "label": "SEP v1 package for pmid:41595163"}], "activities": [{"id": "activity:conversion:pmid:41595163", "type": "conversion", "used": ["package:b769bac2d4ce15efc1db7191a46b9da73aca9aa1712e675a7dda1b44ac9c9992"], "agent": "agent:corpus-assay-engine"}], "agents": [{"id": "agent:minimax", "type": "model", "label": "minimax"}, {"id": "agent:minimax_alt", "type": "model", "label": "minimax_alt"}, {"id": "agent:corpus-assay-engine", "type": "software", "label": "Corpus assay engine"}], "source_run_id": "run-20261023T122449232913", "dsl_catalogue_fingerprint": "343fb30756ba6ec3", "capability_table_fingerprint": "2cb3e42f047d2ecf", "snapshot_id": "ba34b49490d9bfaf"}, "lineage": {"parent_id": "0902aca9-d8ea-4da2-8bb1-df8e8a4825ce", "parent_hash": "b769bac2d4ce15efc1db7191a46b9da73aca9aa1712e675a7dda1b44ac9c9992", "fork_of": null, "generation": 1}, "gaps": ["abstract", "asset:source:pmid:41595163 not verified", "authors", "capability", "corpus_record_absent", "execution.not_run", "method", "review.human_critique", "review.machine_critique.blocked", "step:obtain_source_data blocked on data:accession_absent", "step:run_analysis blocked on no owned computational capability is bound to this experiment", "step:run_analysis input 'materials:the source data behind the published result in pmid:41595163' does not resolve to a declared asset", "targets"]}