Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

A GenAI System for Improved FAIR Independent Biological Database Integration

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FAIRBridge is an experimental natural-language query system that discovers biological databases from PubMed abstracts and generates their access wrappers automatically, reporting a source-discovery hit rate of 86.9% even for databases…

desk verdict A credible retrieval-stage evaluation and an honest system description, but the end-to-end integration claim rests on a heavily filtered subset and self-referential queries. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17934 v1 pith:AACVCML6 submitted 2025-06-22 cs.IR cs.AI

Syed N. Sakib , Kallol Naha , Sajratul Y. Rubaiat , Hasan M. Jamil This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.AI
keywords FAIRdataprinciplesbiologicaldatabasesnaturallanguagequeryprocessingsemanticretrievalwrappergenerationintegrationLinkedOpenlargemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FAIRBridge is an experimental system whose aim is to let life-science researchers query biological databases in free-form English without knowing where the data live, how to access it, or how to integrate it. The paper's claim is that this can be done even when the target databases are not FAIR-compliant: a vector index of 567 PubMed abstracts, combined with a language model that expands queries and generates access wrappers, discovers the right source paper in the top four results for 86.9 percent of test queries, with a mean findability of 0.846. The system then retrieves tables from databases whose FAIRsharing success rates are as low as 15 percent and joins heterogeneous datasets through a relational query language. The paper's reported end-to-end success is much lower than the discovery-stage figure: only 158 of 567 sources could be evaluated end-to-end because of dead links, authentication, and non-tabular data, and the end-to-end hit rate is 12.7 percent. A sympathetic reading is that the paper establishes a working proof-of-concept for automated discovery and access, with the retrieval stage strongest and the final data-extraction stage as the current bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a vector database of publication abstracts with a language-model-generated process description that encodes how to access a source, including URL, interaction type, input filters, and returned-table schema. The vector database carries retrieval: sentence embeddings of 567 abstracts from Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation are matched by cosine similarity to expanded query vectors. The process description carries accessibility and interoperability: it lets the system reuse BioFlow's extract statement, parameterized by a schema matcher, form filler, and wrapper, to turn a source into relational tables and join them. The smart wrapper and stored process-description knowledgebase together convert a one-off retrieval problem into a reusable query workflow.

What would settle it

Ask researchers who have never seen the corpus to write natural-language questions for a random sample of the 567 documented databases, run FAIRBridge on those questions, and compare the top-four hit rate against the reported 0.869; if it falls to roughly the 0.782 baseline achieved without the query analyzer, the retrieval-stage gain is an artifact of query-abstract vocabulary overlap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the paper argues for is that the practical findability and accessibility of a biological database can be improved without changing the database itself. On this account, FAIRBridge treats PubMed abstracts as descriptions of databases and builds a semantic index of them; a user's natural-language query is expanded into several retrieval queries, each matched against the index, and the language model identifies the concrete data sources, URL, and access metadata. The system then generates a process description, a structured recipe for accessing the database through downloadable files, HTML tables, or web forms, and executes the query through BioFlow, which resolves schema differences and supports joins. The empirical claim is that this pipeline retrieves the correct source in the top-four results for 86.9 percent of the 2,268 synthetic queries and achieves a mean findability of 0.846, while successfully retrieving data from databases whose FAIRsharing success rates are as low as 15 percent, which the paper reads as evidence that unFAIR data can be made practically findable and accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that queries synthesized by the language model from each document's own abstract, with that document treated as the only relevant target in Section 7.1, are representative of how real researchers would phrase the same information need; if real queries differ in vocabulary and ambiguity, the discovery-stage scores will not transfer to live use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A biologist could phrase a multi-source question in plain English and receive a joined table, because FAIRBridge generates the wrappers and BioFlow queries automatically.
  • Databases that score poorly on FAIRsharing, as low as 15 percent success, can still be discovered and queried, so FAIR compliance is not a prerequisite for machine-aided access.
  • The query analyzer's reformatting and expansion improves every tested embedding model over raw queries, raising hit rates from roughly 0.78 to 0.87 and lowering findability bias.
  • Repeated queries become cheaper because generated process descriptions are stored and reused instead of re-wrapped.
  • The relational extraction language allows select-project-join operations across sources, so schema heterogeneity is resolved at query time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: Because the retrieval metric is defined per document with queries generated from the document's own abstract, the 86.9 percent hit rate should be read as the system recognizing a database described in text it already contains, not as a measure of real-world search behavior; a deployment test with queries authored from memory would likely score lower.
  • Inference: The same architecture, abstract corpus plus language-model-generated wrappers plus relational execution, should transfer to domains beyond biology, since nothing in the mechanism depends on biological content; rebuilding the corpus and process-description knowledgebase would be the main cost.
  • Inference: The gap between the 86.9 percent discovery hit rate and the 12.7 percent end-to-end hit rate suggests that the bottleneck is not finding data but getting it out of heterogeneous, sometimes broken, web interfaces; improvements to multi-step form handling would have more impact than better embedding models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents FAIRBridge, a natural-language query system that discovers biological databases from PubMed abstracts, generates access wrappers and process descriptions, and executes BioFlow queries to extract and integrate data. The authors evaluate source retrieval with five embedding models and LDA, reporting that query expansion improves retrieval, with text-embedding-ada-002 achieving mean findability 0.846 and hit rate 0.869. An end-to-end evaluation on a filtered subset of 158 sources reports hit rate 12.7% and mean findability 0.127, and a FAIRSharing comparison is used to argue that the system can retrieve from low-FAIR databases.

Significance. The idea of using LLM-generated wrappers and reusable process descriptions for unFAIR deep-web databases is useful and relevant to data quality and integration. The comparative retrieval experiments are clean in their internal design, the system is publicly available, and the paper makes a serious attempt to connect FAIR metrics to system behavior. However, the retrieval evaluation is compromised by circular query generation, and the end-to-end evaluation does not verify the correctness of extracted data, so the paper's main integration claim is currently unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.1, Eq. (4)] The evaluation queries are generated by GPT-4o from each document's own abstract, and the relevant document for each query is the generating document itself. Because the query analyzer (Section 5.1.1) also retrieves RAG contexts from the same Chroma vector database built from those abstracts, the reported retrieval-stage hit rate (0.869) and mean findability (0.846) are partly an artifact of the test construction rather than a measure of real-world findability. To support the paper's claims, the authors need to evaluate with independent queries (e.g., user-generated or held-out queries not derived from the target abstracts) and report performance on those.
  2. [Section 7.3] The end-to-end evaluation is conducted only after excluding 409 of 567 sources (268 with HTTP errors or timeouts, 76 not found, 65 incompatible), leaving 158; on this selected subset the hit rate is 12.7% and mean findability is 0.127. Even if the exclusions are legitimate, the paper does not report any unfiltered end-to-end result or a failure analysis, and the Discussion's own admission that the system 'struggles with complex forms requiring multi-page submissions or intricate inputs' indicates that the reported 12.7% is an upper bound on the selected subset. The central claim of autonomous end-to-end integration is therefore not established by the reported experiments; the authors should either evaluate on a representative sample of all 567 sources (with explicit success/failure categorization) or clearly reposition the system's scope to retrieval-stage plus partial accessibility.
  3. [Table 5] The checkmarks in Table 5 indicate only that FAIRBridge succeeded in retrieving some data from each listed source; the paper does not report any correctness check of the retrieved data against a ground truth, nor any human evaluation of sample outputs. Consequently, the FAIRSharing comparison (15–45% success rates) demonstrates that some low-FAIR sources are reachable, but does not demonstrate that the integrated answers are accurate or complete. A few qualitative examples with manual verification would be the minimum needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 2] The loop in Algorithm 2 is ambiguous: the text says 'combinations of decreasing length,' but the pseudocode 'for i from n to L' with no decrement could be read as an increasing loop; please clarify the loop direction and the role of L.
  2. [Section 7.2.3] The abbreviation MMR is nonstandard for Mean Reciprocal Rank (usually MRR); please use the standard abbreviation to avoid confusion with the unrelated mean magnitude of relative error.
  3. [Table 1] The feature comparison table lacks a legend and the meanings of checkmarks and crosses are not defined; also, the 'Customizable Output' column appears to conflate repository-internal formatting with cross-platform reshaping.
  4. [Section 7.2.1, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) uses an unusual formatting of the double sum ('n,m∑'); standard double-sum notation would improve readability.
  5. [Section 7.1] The paper says two query generation strategies are used (human-like and topic-based), but the results in Table 4 appear to report only the human-like queries plus LDA as a model; the role of topic-based queries in the evaluation is unclear and should be stated explicitly.
  6. [Section 5.1.1] The example lists five expanded queries while the algorithm defines a set of size k; it would be clearer to state the value of k used in the experiments and how the expanded-set size was chosen.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The headline retrieval metrics are self-referential: each query is generated from the abstract of the document that is defined as the sole relevant result, and the RAG expansion contexts come from the same vector store that is later searched.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7.1 (Experiment Design), Section 7.2.2 (Hit Rate), Section 7.3 (Results)]
    "For evaluation, we generated m = 4 natural language queries for each of the n = 567 documents (D) from PubMed. ... Human-like Queries: These natural language queries mimic real-world search behavior. They are constructed by providing contexts of documents as prompts to a GPT 4o model. ... Each query had one relevant document, and the evaluation was conducted on the top 4 retrieved documents."

    The relevance set Rel(q_i) in Eq. (4) is, by construction, the very document whose abstract was fed to GPT-4o to synthesize q_i. The hit rate of 86.9%, mean findability of 0.846, and related retrieval metrics therefore measure the system's ability to retrieve a document when the query is generated from that document's own abstract. The test input encodes the target, so the reported retrieval-stage predictions are not independent measurements of findability under real user queries.

  2. other [Section 5.1.1 (Query Analyzer), Algorithm 1 lines 3-6; Section 5.1.3 (Resource Identification)]
    "Compute similarity scores between v_q and vectors in the database; Retrieve top-n similar contexts C = {c1,c2,...,cn}; Generate expanded query set Q_e = {Q1,Q2,...,Qk} using RAG based on q and C; ... The documents retrieved from all the expanded queries and PubMed documents are then merged into a single collection D."

    The RAG contexts used to build the expanded queries are retrieved from the same Chroma vector database that Resource Identification later searches in Algorithm 3. When the target document is among those top-n contexts, which is likely because the query was generated from that document, the expanded queries inherit the target's own vocabulary and content. Final retrieval of that document in the top-k results is therefore partly forced by the query-expansion loop, so the retrieval scores encode the test construction twice: once in the query-generation prompt and once in the RAG context source.

full rationale

The reported source-retrieval hit rate (86.9%) and mean findability (0.846) are the paper's headline numbers, but they are measured on a task in which each query is generated from the abstract of the document that is defined as the only relevant result (Sections 7.1 and 7.3). This is not an equation-level derivation, but it is genuine evaluation circularity: the relevance labels are constructed from the query-generation input, so the prediction of relevance is partially encoded in the test. The same loop appears inside the system: Algorithm 1 expands the user query using top-n contexts retrieved from the same vector database that Algorithm 3 later searches, so the expanded queries can inherit the target document's own vocabulary. The end-to-end integration claim is weaker but not circular: it is based on only 158 of 567 sources after filtering, has a 12.7% hit rate on that subset, and the checkmark in Table 5 indicates retrievability rather than correctness of the returned data. The paper's own Discussion (Section 7.4) concedes that complex forms, multi-page submissions, and intricate inputs are not handled, which is an internal evaluation gap rather than a circularity. BioNursery, Needle, and BioFlow are cited as prior infrastructure by overlapping authors, but they are not used to justify the retrieval result, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. Overall, the central retrieval metrics encode the test construction, which supports a score of 5; the system design itself is not forced by the equations, so a score of 8-10 would be too harsh.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's performance rests on the representativeness of the 567-abstract corpus, on the validity of cosine similarity as a relevance signal, on the accuracy of LLM-generated structured outputs, and on the assumption that self-generated test queries stand in for real user behavior. None of these are measured against external benchmarks.

free parameters (3)
  • retrieval cutoff k = 4
    Hit rate and evaluation use top-4 retrieved documents; the number is chosen by hand and not justified by data.
  • minimum keyword length L = not specified
    PubMed search algorithm drops keywords until reaching threshold L; L is a hand-set minimum affecting recall.
  • number of expanded queries k = 5 in example
    Query analyzer generates k expanded queries; k is not derived from theory.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 567-document corpus from 'Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation' is representative of biological data sources users need.
    Findability evaluation and the vector database backbone are built entirely on this corpus; if it is not representative of the real LOD landscape, retrieval performance does not transfer. Sections 5.1 and 7.1.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o structured prompting produces accurate database identification, schema extraction, and wrapper generation.
    The Findability and Accessibility modules depend on LLM output for resource selection and form filling; no independent accuracy assessment of the LLM steps is provided. Sections 5.1.3, 5.2, 5.3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Queries generated from document contexts are a valid proxy for real user queries.
    The evaluation constructs m=4 queries per document from the document's own abstract and defines that document as the sole relevant result, a self-referential evaluation design. Section 7.1.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between query embeddings and abstract embeddings is a valid relevance signal for database discovery.
    Resource identification ranks documents via cosine similarity of text-embedding-ada-002 vectors; this assumes semantic similarity of abstracts indicates reliability or relevance of the hosted database. Sections 5.1.3 and 7.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A GenAI System for Improved FAIR Independent Biological Database Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AACVCML6

@misc{pith2026250617934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A GenAI System for Improved FAIR Independent Biological Database Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AACVCML6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17934}
}
read the original abstract

Life sciences research increasingly requires identifying, accessing, and effectively processing data from an ever-evolving array of information sources on the Linked Open Data (LOD) network. This dynamic landscape places a significant burden on researchers, as the quality of query responses depends heavily on the selection and semantic integration of data sources --processes that are often labor-intensive, error-prone, and costly. While the adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles has aimed to address these challenges, barriers to efficient and accurate scientific data processing persist. In this paper, we introduce FAIRBridge, an experimental natural language-based query processing system designed to empower scientists to discover, access, and query biological databases, even when they are not FAIR-compliant. FAIRBridge harnesses the capabilities of AI to interpret query intents, map them to relevant databases described in scientific literature, and generate executable queries via intelligent resource access plans. The system also includes robust tools for mitigating low-quality query processing, ensuring high fidelity and responsiveness in the information delivered. FAIRBridge's autonomous query processing framework enables users to explore alternative data sources, make informed choices at every step, and leverage community-driven crowd curation when needed. By providing a user-friendly, automated hypothesis-testing platform in natural English, FAIRBridge significantly enhances the integration and processing of scientific data, offering researchers a powerful new tool for advancing their inquiries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Functional Components of FAIRBridge ACM J. Data Inform. Quality, Vol. 10, No. 12, Article 1. Publication date: October 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FAIRBridge user interface. choices, empowering them to make informed decisions without needing to navigate the system’s technical complexities. It also facilitates collaboration by offering the capability to involve the broader community in resolving complex tasks when needed. To further enhance usability, FAIRBridge introduces a "Guided Execution" mode, allowing users to steer computations step by step. This mode p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interoperable Data from Different Sources. The user provides a query and optional follow-up for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Search Result in Human-in-the-loop Resource Discovery Process. The most relevant papers retrieved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intermediate Stage in Human-in-the-loop Resource Discovery Process. The accessibility module’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Qingyao Ai, Ting Bai, Zhao Cao, Yi Chang, Jiawei Chen, Zhumin Chen, Zhiyong Cheng, Shoubin Dong, Zhicheng Dou, Fuli Feng, Shen Gao, Jiafeng Guo, Xiangnan He, Yanyan Lan, Chenliang Li, Yiqun Liu, Ziyu Lyu, Weizhi Ma, Jun Ma, Zhaochun Ren, Pengjie Ren, Zhiqiang Wang, Mingwen Wang, Ji-Rong Wen, Le Wu, Xin Xin, Jun Xu, Dawei Yin, Peng Zhang, Fan Zhang, Weinan...

    2023

  2. [2]

    Emna Amdouni, Syphax Bouazzouni, and Clement Jonquet. 2022. O’FAIRe makes you an offer: metadata-based automatic FAIRness assessment for ontologies and semantic resources. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 16, 1 (2022), 16–46

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Bernstein, Jayant Madhavan, and Erhard Rahm

    Philip A. Bernstein, Jayant Madhavan, and Erhard Rahm. 2011. Generic Schema Matching, Ten Years Later. Proc. VLDB Endow. 4, 11 (2011), 695–701. http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p695-bernstein_madhavan_rahm.pdf ACM J. Data Inform. Quality, Vol. 10, No. 12, Article 1. Publication date: October 2025. 1:26 Syed Nazmus Sakib, Kallol Naha, Sajratul Y. Rubaiat, an...

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Binder, Sune Pletscher-Frankild, Kalliopi Tsafou, Christian Stolte, Seán I

    Janos X. Binder, Sune Pletscher-Frankild, Kalliopi Tsafou, Christian Stolte, Seán I. O’Donoghue, Reinhard Schneider, and Lars Juhl Jensen. 2014. COMPARTMENTS: unification and visualization of protein subcellular localization evidence. Database J. Biol. Databases Curation 2014 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/DATABASE/BAU012

    doi:10.1093/database/bau012 2014

  5. [5]

    Dan Brickley, Matthew Burgess, and Natasha F. Noy. 2019. Google Dataset Search: Building a search engine for datasets in an open Web ecosystem. In The World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 13-17, 2019 , Ling Liu, Ryen W. White, Amin Mantrach, Fabrizio Silvestri, Julian J. McAuley, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, and Leila Zia (Eds.). ACM, ...

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Patricia M. C. Campos, Cássio Chaves Reginato, João Paulo A. Almeida, Monalessa Perini Barcellos, Ricardo de Almeida Falbo, Vítor E. Silva Souza, and Giancarlo Guizzardi. 2020. Finding reusable structured resources for the integration of environmental research data. Environ. Model. Softw. 133 (2020), 104813. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ENVSOFT.2020.104813

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Harrison Chase and the LangChain Team. 2022. LangChain: Building Applications with Large Language Models. https://python.langchain.com/

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Chroma. 2023. Chroma: The Open-Source AI Application Database. https://www.trychroma.com/

    work page 2023

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Daniel JB Clarke, Lily Wang, Alex Jones, Megan L Wojciechowicz, Denis Torre, Kathleen M Jagodnik, Sherry L Jenkins, Peter McQuilton, Zachary Flamholz, Moshe C Silverstein, et al. 2019. FAIRshake: toolkit to evaluate the FAIRness of research digital resources. Cell systems 9, 5...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Peter J. A. Cock, Tiago Antao, Jeffrey T. Chang, Brad A. Chapman, Cymon J. Cox, Andrew Dalke, Iddo Friedberg, Thomas Hamelryck, Frank Kauff, Bartek Wilczynski, and Michiel J. L. de Hoon. 2009. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bio...

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    Selenium Contributors. 2004. Selenium WebDriver. https://www.selenium.dev/documentation/webdriver/

    2004

  4. [12]

    Helena Cousijn, Ted Habermann, Elizabeth Krznarich, and Alice Meadows. 2022. Beyond data: Sharing related research outputs to make data reusable. Learn. Publ. 35, 1 (2022), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/LEAP.1429

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    DataCite. 2024. DataCite. https://datacite.org/ Accessed: 2024-10-06

    2024

  6. [14]

    Allan Peter Davis, Thomas C Wiegers, Cynthia G Murphy, and Carolyn J Mattingly. 2011. The curation paradigm and application tool used for manual curation of the scientific literature at the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database. Database 2011 (2011), bar034

    2011

  7. [15]

    Anusuriya Devaraju and Robert Huber. 2021. An automated solution for measuring the progress toward FAIR research data. Patterns 2, 11 (2021), 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PATTER.2021.100370

    2021

  8. [16]

    Anusuriya Devaraju, Robert Huber, Mustapha Mokrane, Patricia Herterich, Linas Cepinskas, Jerry de Vries, Herve L’Hours, Joy Davidson, and Angus White. 2020. FAIRsFAIR data object assessment metrics. Zenodo https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo 4081213 (2020)

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hong-Hai Do and Erhard Rahm. 2002. COMA: A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB) . VLDB Endowment, 610–621. https:// dbs.uni-leipzig.de/research/publications/coma-a-sys...

    2002

  11. [19]

    Dryad. 2024. Dryad - Publish and Preserve Your Data. https://datadryad.org/stash. Accessed: 2024-10-05

    2024

  12. [20]

    Mikołaj Dziurzyński, Przemyslaw Decewicz, Mateusz Iskra, Zofia Bakuła, and Tomasz Jagielski. 2021. Prototheca-ID: a web-based application for molecular identification of Prototheca species. Database 2021 (2021), baab073

    2021

  13. [21]

    Matheus Pedra Puime Feijoó, Rodrigo Jardim, Sérgio Manuel Serra da Cruz, and Maria Luiza Machado Campos. 2020. Evaluating FAIRness of Genomic Databases. In Advances in Conceptual Modeling - ER 2020 Workshops CMAI, CMLS, CMOMM4FAIR, CoMoNoS, EmpER, Vienna, Austria, November 3-6...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    J Felden, L Möller, U Schindler, R Huber, S Schumacher, R Koppe, M Diepenbroek, and FO Glöckner. 2023. PANGAEA – Data Publisher for Earth & Environmental Science. https://pangaea.de/. Scientific Data, 10(1), 347, https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41597-023-02269-x

    2023

  15. [23]

    Baiyang Feng and Jing Gao. 2022. AnthraxKP: a knowledge graph-based, Anthrax Knowledge Portal mined from biomedical literature. Database 2022 (2022), baac037

    2022

  16. [24]

    Roy Thomas Fielding. 2000. Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures . Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine. https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm

    2000

  17. [25]

    Figshare. 2024. Figshare - Share your research. https://figshare.com/. Accessed: 2024-10-05. ACM J. Data Inform. Quality, Vol. 10, No. 12, Article 1. Publication date: October 2025. A GenAI System for Improved FAIR Independent Biological Database Integration 1:27

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ian Foster and Carl Kesselman. 2022. CUF-Links: Continuous and Ubiquitous FAIRness Linkages for Reproducible Research. Computer 55, 8 (2022), 20–30

    2022

  19. [27]

    Matthias P Gerstl, Michael Hanscho, David E Ruckerbauer, Jürgen Zanghellini, and Nicole Borth. 2017. CHOmine: an integrated data warehouse for CHO systems biology and modeling. Database 2017 (2017), bax034

    2017

  20. [28]

    Pawan Goyal, Laxmidhar Behera, and Thomas Martin McGinnity. 2011. Query representation through lexical association for information retrieval. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and Data Engineering 24, 12 (2011), 2260–2273

    2011

  21. [29]

    Rebecca Grant. 2022. Reusable, FAIR Humanities Data. Int. J. Digit. Curation 17, 1 (2022), 15. http://www.ijdc.net/ article/view/820

    2022

  22. [30]

    Ant Group. 2016. Ant Design: An enterprise-class UI design language and React UI library. https://ant.design/

    2016

  23. [31]

    Bruce Croft

    Jiafeng Guo, Yixing Fan, Qingyao Ai, and W. Bruce Croft. 2017. A Deep Relevance Matching Model for Ad-hoc Retrieval. CoRR abs/1711.08611 (2017). arXiv:1711.08611 http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08611

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hang Hu, Zhenxiao Lu, Haisong Feng, Guojun Chen, Yongmei Wang, Congshan Yang, and Zhenyu Yue. 2022. DGPD: a knowledge database of dense granule proteins of the Apicomplexa. Database 2022 (2022), baac085

    2022

  25. [33]

    Po-Sen Huang, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, Li Deng, Alex Acero, and Larry P. Heck. 2013. Learning deep structured semantic models for web search using clickthrough data. In 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM’13, San Francisco, CA, USA...

    2013

  26. [34]

    Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2024. ICPSR: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/ Accessed: 2024-10-10

    2024

  27. [35]

    Krawetz, and Alexander Gow

    Hasan Jamil, Stephen A. Krawetz, and Alexander Gow. 2024. Knowledge Synthesis using Large Language Models for a Computational Biology Workflow Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2024, A vila, Spain, April 8-12, 2024 , Jiman Hon...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Hamed Jelodar, Yongli Wang, Chi Yuan, Xia Feng, Xiahui Jiang, Yanchao Li, and Liang Zhao. 2019. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (2019), 15169–15211

    2019

  29. [37]

    Qiao Jin, Robert Leaman, and Zhiyong Lu. 2023. PubMed and Beyond: Biomedical Literature Search in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09683 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Shaini Joseph and Smita D Mahale. 2021. Male Infertility Knowledgebase: decoding the genetic and disease landscape. Database 2021 (08 2021), baab049. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baab049 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/database/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/database/baab049/39604...

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Abbas Khan, Taimoor Khan, Syed Nouman Nasir, Syed Shujait Ali, Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Rizwan, Muham- mad Waseem, Shahid Ali, Xia Zhao, and Dong-Qing Wei. 2021. BC-TFdb: a database of transcription factor drivers in breast cancer. Database 2021 (2021), baab018

    2021

  32. [40]

    Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERT. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2020, Virtual Event, C...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Hanhae Kim, Jung Eun Shim, Junha Shin, and Insuk Lee. 2015. EcoliNet: a database of cofunctional gene network for Escherichia coli. Database 2015 (2015), bav001

    2015

  34. [42]

    Jungeun Kim, Jae-Pil Choi, Min Sun Kim, and Jong Bhak. 2022. PharmaKoVariome database for supporting genetic testing. Database 2022 (2022), baac092

    2022

  35. [43]

    Hamin Koo, Minseon Kim, and Sung Ju Hwang. 2024. Optimizing Query Generation for Enhanced Document Retrieval in RAG. CoRR abs/2407.12325 (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.12325 arXiv:2407.12325

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Larry Lannom, Dimitris Koureas, and Alex R Hardisty. 2020. FAIR data and services in biodiversity science and geoscience. Data Intelligence 2, 1-2 (2020), 122–130

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lindsey and Bernie R

    Wesley T. Lindsey and Bernie R. Olin. 2013. PubMed Searches. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 28, 2 (2013), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533613475821 arXiv:https://aspenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0884533613475821

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    Tie-Yan Liu et al. 2009. Learning to rank for information retrieval. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 3 (2009), 225–331

    2009

  39. [47]

    Bernstein, and Erhard Rahm

    Jayant Madhavan, Philip A. Bernstein, and Erhard Rahm. 2001. Generic Schema Matching with Cupid. In VLDB 2001, Proceedings of 27th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, September 11-14, 2001, Roma, Italy , Peter M. G. Apers, Paolo Atzeni, Stefano Ceri, Stefano Par...

    2001

  40. [48]

    Michele Magrane and UniProt Consortium. 2011. UniProt Knowledgebase: a hub of integrated protein data. Database 2011 (2011), bar009. ACM J. Data Inform. Quality, Vol. 10, No. 12, Article 1. Publication date: October 2025. 1:28 Syed Nazmus Sakib, Kallol Naha, Sajratul Y. Rubaia...

    2011

  41. [49]

    Alexander Miguel Monzon, Cristian Oscar Rohr, María Silvina Fornasari, and Gustavo Parisi. 2016. CoDNaS 2.0: a comprehensive database of protein conformational diversity in the native state. Database 2016 (2016), baw038

    2016

  42. [50]

    Xin Mou and Hasan M. Jamil. 2020. Visual Life Sciences Workflow Design Using Distributed and Heterogeneous Resources. IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 17, 4 (2020), 1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2018. 2886185

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    MUI. 2014. Material UI: React components for faster and easier web development. https://mui.com/material-ui/

    2014

  44. [52]

    Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Computation: Integrating neural and symbolic approaches 2016 co...

    2016

  45. [53]

    Rodrigo Frassetto Nogueira, Wei Yang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Multi-Stage Document Ranking with BERT. CoRR abs/1910.14424 (2019). arXiv:1910.14424 http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.14424

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    OpenAI. 2024. GPT-4o: A Multimodal Language Model. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  47. [55]

    Jim Zheng, Kirk Roberts, Hulin Wu, and Ashraf Yaseen

    Braja Gopal Patra, Babak Soltanalizadeh, Nan Deng, Leqing Wu, Vahed Maroufy, Canglin Wu, W. Jim Zheng, Kirk Roberts, Hulin Wu, and Ashraf Yaseen. 2020. An informatics research platform to make public gene expression time-course datasets reusable for more scientific discoveries...

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Janet Pinero, Josep Sauch, Ferran Sanz, and Laura I. Furlong. 2021. The DisGeNET cytoscape app: Exploring and visualizing disease genomics data. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 19 (2021), 2960–2967. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2021.05.015

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Mark Raasveldt and Hannes Mühleisen. 2019. DuckDB: an Embeddable Analytical Database. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD Conference 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 30 - July 5, 2019, Peter A. Boncz, Stefan Manegold, Anastas...

    2019

  50. [58]

    re3data.org. 2024. re3data.org - Registry of Research Data Repositories. https://www.re3data.org/ Accessed: 2024-10-06

    2024

  51. [59]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJC...

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    Leonard Richardson. 2007. Beautiful Soup Documentation. https://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/bs4/doc/

    2007

  53. [61]

    Armin Ronacher and the Flask Community. 2010. Flask: A Python Microframework for Web Development. https: //flask.palletsprojects.com/

    2010

  54. [62]

    Rouillard, Gregory W

    Andrew D. Rouillard, Gregory W. Gundersen, Nicolas F. Fernandez, Zichen Wang, Caroline D. Monteiro, Michael G. McDermott, and Avi Ma’ayan. 2016. The harmonizome: a collection of processed datasets gathered to serve and mine knowledge about genes and proteins. Database J. Biol....

    2016

  55. [63]

    Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Peter McQuilton, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Massimiliano Izzo, Allyson L Lister, Milo Thurston, and FAIRsharing Community. 2019. FAIRsharing as a community approach to standards, repositories and policies. Nature biotechnology 37...

    2019

  56. [64]

    Hugh Shanahan and Louise Bezuidenhout. 2022. Rethinking the a in FAIR Data: issues of data access and accessibility in research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 7 (2022), 912456

    2022

  57. [65]

    Yelong Shen, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, Li Deng, and Grégoire Mesnil. 2014. A Latent Semantic Model with Convolutional-Pooling Structure for Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CI...

    2014

  58. [66]

    Aman Sinha, Priyanshu Raj Mall, and Dwaipayan Roy. 2023. Findability: A Novel Measure of Information Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2023, Birmingham, United Kingdom, October 21-25, 2023 , Ing...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Edmund Sowah and Jianqiu Xu. 2018. Edgebase: A Cooperative Query Answering Database System With A Natural Language Interface. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Algorithms, Computing and Artificial Intelligence (Sanya, China) (ACAI ’18). Association for Com...

    2018

  60. [68]

    Nicola Stokes. 2006. TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna K. Harman (editors) (National Institute of Standards and Technology), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (Digital libraries and electronic publishing series, edited by William Y...

    2006 doi

  61. [69]

    Sushil Tripathi, Steven Vercruysse, Konika Chawla, Karen R Christie, Judith A Blake, Rachael P Huntley, Sandra Orchard, Henning Hermjakob, Liv Thommesen, Astrid Lægreid, et al. 2016. Gene regulation knowledge commons: community action takes care of DNA binding transcription fa...

    2016

  62. [70]

    Guilherme Viteri, Lisa Matthews, Thawfeek Varusai, Marc Gillespie, Marija Milacic, Justin Cook, Joel Weiser, Solomon Shorser, Konstantinos Sidiropoulos, Antonio Fabregat, et al. 2019. Reactome and ORCID—fine-grained credit attribution for community curation. Database 2019 (201...

    2019

  63. [71]

    Jordan Walke and the React Community. 2013. React: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces. https://react.dev/

    2013

  64. [72]

    M Wilkinson, S Sansone, E Schultes, P Doorn, LO Bonino da Silva Santos, and M Dumontier. 2018. A design framework and exemplar metrics for FAIRness. Scientific Data 5 (1)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Mark D Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E Bourne, et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. ...

    2016

  66. [74]

    Chenyan Xiong, Zhuyun Dai, Jamie Callan, Zhiyuan Liu, and Russell Power. 2017. End-to-End Neural Ad-hoc Ranking with Kernel Pooling. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan, Augu...

    2017

  67. [75]

    Evan You and the Vite Community. 2020. Vite: Next Generation Frontend Tooling. https://vite.dev/

    2020

  68. [76]

    Claudio Zanettini, Mohamed Omar, Wikum Dinalankara, Eddie Luidy Imada, Elizabeth Colantuoni, Giovanni Parmi- giani, and Luigi Marchionni. 2021. covid19census: US and Italy COVID-19 metrics and other epidemiological data. Database 2021 (2021), baab027

    2021

  69. [77]

    Cheng Zeng, Weihua Zhan, and Lei Deng. 2018. SDADB: A functional annotation database of protein structural domains. Database 2018 (2018), bay064

    2018

  70. [78]

    Hui Zeng, Chengxiang Qiu, and Qinghua Cui. 2015. Drug-path: a database for drug-induced pathways. Database 2015 (2015), bav061

    2015

  71. [79]

    Zenodo. 2024. Zenodo - Research. Shared. https://zenodo.org/. Accessed: 2024-10-05. ACM J. Data Inform. Quality, Vol. 10, No. 12, Article 1. Publication date: October 2025

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.