skip to main content

Title: An Exploratory Interface for Dataset Repositories Using Cell-Centric Indexing
Large collections of datasets are being published on the Web at an increasing rate. This poses a problem to researchers and data journalists who must sift through these large quantities of data to find datasets that meet their needs. Our solution to this problem is cell-centric indexing, a novel approach which considers the individual cell of a dataset to be the fundamental unit of search, indexing the corresponding metadata to each individual cell. This facilitates a new style of user interface that allows users to explore the collection via histograms that show the distributions of various terms organized by how they are used in the dataset.
Authors:
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1757787 1816325
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10232383
Journal Name:
IEEE International Conference on Big Data (IEEE BigData 2020)
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
5716 - 5718
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ncreasingly, large collections of datasets are made available to the public via the Web, ranging from government-curated datasets like those of data.gov to communally-sourced datasets such as Wikipedia tables. It has become clear that traditional search techniques are insufficient for such sources, especially when the user is unfamiliar with the terminology used by the creators of the relevant datasets. We propose to address this problem by elevating the datum to a first-class object that is indexed, thereby making it less dependent on how a dataset is structured. In a data table, a cell contains a value for a particular row as described by a particular column. In our cell-centric indexing approach, we index the metadata of each cell, so that information about its dataset and column simply become metadata rather than constraining concepts. In this paper we define cell-centric indexing and present a system architecture that supports its use in exploring datasets. We describe how cell-centric indexing can be implemented using traditional information retrieval technology and evaluate the scalability of the architecture.
  2. Abstract Purpose The ability to identify the scholarship of individual authors is essential for performance evaluation. A number of factors hinder this endeavor. Common and similarly spelled surnames make it difficult to isolate the scholarship of individual authors indexed on large databases. Variations in name spelling of individual scholars further complicates matters. Common family names in scientific powerhouses like China make it problematic to distinguish between authors possessing ubiquitous and/or anglicized surnames (as well as the same or similar first names). The assignment of unique author identifiers provides a major step toward resolving these difficulties. We maintain, however, that in and of themselves, author identifiers are not sufficient to fully address the author uncertainty problem. In this study we build on the author identifier approach by considering commonalities in fielded data between authors containing the same surname and first initial of their first name. We illustrate our approach using three case studies. Design/methodology/approach The approach we advance in this study is based on commonalities among fielded data in search results. We cast a broad initial net—i.e., a Web of Science (WOS) search for a given author’s last name, followed by a comma, followed by the first initial of his ormore »her first name (e.g., a search for ‘John Doe’ would assume the form: ‘Doe, J’). Results for this search typically contain all of the scholarship legitimately belonging to this author in the given database (i.e., all of his or her true positives), along with a large amount of noise, or scholarship not belonging to this author (i.e., a large number of false positives). From this corpus we proceed to iteratively weed out false positives and retain true positives. Author identifiers provide a good starting point—e.g., if ‘Doe, J’ and ‘Doe, John’ share the same author identifier, this would be sufficient for us to conclude these are one and the same individual. We find email addresses similarly adequate—e.g., if two author names which share the same surname and same first initial have an email address in common, we conclude these authors are the same person. Author identifier and email address data is not always available, however. When this occurs, other fields are used to address the author uncertainty problem. Commonalities among author data other than unique identifiers and email addresses is less conclusive for name consolidation purposes. For example, if ‘Doe, John’ and ‘Doe, J’ have an affiliation in common, do we conclude that these names belong the same person? They may or may not; affiliations have employed two or more faculty members sharing the same last and first initial. Similarly, it’s conceivable that two individuals with the same last name and first initial publish in the same journal, publish with the same co-authors, and/or cite the same references. Should we then ignore commonalities among these fields and conclude they’re too imprecise for name consolidation purposes? It is our position that such commonalities are indeed valuable for addressing the author uncertainty problem, but more so when used in combination. Our approach makes use of automation as well as manual inspection, relying initially on author identifiers, then commonalities among fielded data other than author identifiers, and finally manual verification. To achieve name consolidation independent of author identifier matches, we have developed a procedure that is used with bibliometric software called VantagePoint (see www.thevantagepoint.com) While the application of our technique does not exclusively depend on VantagePoint, it is the software we find most efficient in this study. The script we developed to implement this procedure is designed to implement our name disambiguation procedure in a way that significantly reduces manual effort on the user’s part. Those who seek to replicate our procedure independent of VantagePoint can do so by manually following the method we outline, but we note that the manual application of our procedure takes a significant amount of time and effort, especially when working with larger datasets. Our script begins by prompting the user for a surname and a first initial (for any author of interest). It then prompts the user to select a WOS field on which to consolidate author names. After this the user is prompted to point to the name of the authors field, and finally asked to identify a specific author name (referred to by the script as the primary author) within this field whom the user knows to be a true positive (a suggested approach is to point to an author name associated with one of the records that has the author’s ORCID iD or email address attached to it). The script proceeds to identify and combine all author names sharing the primary author’s surname and first initial of his or her first name who share commonalities in the WOS field on which the user was prompted to consolidate author names. This typically results in significant reduction in the initial dataset size. After the procedure completes the user is usually left with a much smaller (and more manageable) dataset to manually inspect (and/or apply additional name disambiguation techniques to). Research limitations Match field coverage can be an issue. When field coverage is paltry dataset reduction is not as significant, which results in more manual inspection on the user’s part. Our procedure doesn’t lend itself to scholars who have had a legal family name change (after marriage, for example). Moreover, the technique we advance is (sometimes, but not always) likely to have a difficult time dealing with scholars who have changed careers or fields dramatically, as well as scholars whose work is highly interdisciplinary. Practical implications The procedure we advance has the ability to save a significant amount of time and effort for individuals engaged in name disambiguation research, especially when the name under consideration is a more common family name. It is more effective when match field coverage is high and a number of match fields exist. Originality/value Once again, the procedure we advance has the ability to save a significant amount of time and effort for individuals engaged in name disambiguation research. It combines preexisting with more recent approaches, harnessing the benefits of both. Findings Our study applies the name disambiguation procedure we advance to three case studies. Ideal match fields are not the same for each of our case studies. We find that match field effectiveness is in large part a function of field coverage. Comparing original dataset size, the timeframe analyzed for each case study is not the same, nor are the subject areas in which they publish. Our procedure is more effective when applied to our third case study, both in terms of list reduction and 100% retention of true positives. We attribute this to excellent match field coverage, and especially in more specific match fields, as well as having a more modest/manageable number of publications. While machine learning is considered authoritative by many, we do not see it as practical or replicable. The procedure advanced herein is both practical, replicable and relatively user friendly. It might be categorized into a space between ORCID and machine learning. Machine learning approaches typically look for commonalities among citation data, which is not always available, structured or easy to work with. The procedure we advance is intended to be applied across numerous fields in a dataset of interest (e.g. emails, coauthors, affiliations, etc.), resulting in multiple rounds of reduction. Results indicate that effective match fields include author identifiers, emails, source titles, co-authors and ISSNs. While the script we present is not likely to result in a dataset consisting solely of true positives (at least for more common surnames), it does significantly reduce manual effort on the user’s part. Dataset reduction (after our procedure is applied) is in large part a function of (a) field availability and (b) field coverage.« less
  3. In this work, we formulate and solve a new type of approximate nearest neighbor search (ANNS) problems called ANNS after linear transformation (ALT). In ANNS-ALT, we search for the vector (in a dataset) that, after being linearly transformed by a user-specified query matrix, is closest to a query vector. It is a very general mother problem in the sense that a wide range of baby ANNS problems that have important applications in databases and machine learning can be reduced to and solved as ANNS-ALT, or its dual that we call ANNS-ALTD. We propose a novel and computationally efficient solution, called ONe Index for All Kernels (ONIAK), to ANNS-ALT and all its baby problems when the data dimension 𝑑 is not too large (say 𝑑 ≤ 200). In ONIAK, a universal index is built, once and for all, for answering all future ANNS-ALT queries that can have distinct query matrices. We show by experiments that, when 𝑑 is not too large, ONIAK has better query performance than linear scan on the mother problem (of ANNS-ALT), and has query performances comparable to those of the state-of-the-art solutions on the baby problems. However, the algorithmic technique behind this universal index approach suffers frommore »a so-called dimension blowup problem that can make the indexing time prohibitively long for a large dataset. We propose a novel algorithmic technique, called fast GOE quadratic form (FGoeQF), that completely solves the (prohibitively long indexing time) fallout of the dimension blowup problem. We also propose a Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform (JLT) based ANNS- ALT (and ANNS-ALTD) solution that significantly outperforms any competitor when 𝑑 is large.« less
  4. null (Ed.)
    Large, comprehensive collections of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets have been generated that allow for the full transcriptional characterization of cell types across a wide variety of biological and clinical conditions. As new methods arise to measure distinct cellular modalities, a key analytical challenge is to integrate these datasets or transfer knowledge from one to the other to better understand cellular identity and functions. Here, we present a simple yet surprisingly effective method named common factor integration and transfer learning (cFIT) for capturing various batch effects across experiments, technologies, subjects, and even species. The proposed method models the shared information between various datasets by a common factor space while allowing for unique distortions and shifts in genewise expression in each batch. The model parameters are learned under an iterative nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) framework and then used for synchronized integration from across-domain assays. In addition, the model enables transferring via low-rank matrix from more informative data to allow for precise identification in data of lower quality. Compared with existing approaches, our method imposes weaker assumptions on the cell composition of each individual dataset; however, it is shown to be more reliable in preserving biological variations. We apply cFIT to multiplemore »scRNA-seq datasets of developing brain from human and mouse, varying by technologies and developmental stages. The successful integration and transfer uncover the transcriptional resemblance across systems. The study helps establish a comprehensive landscape of brain cell-type diversity and provides insights into brain development.« less
  5. Abstract Background Drug sensitivity prediction and drug responsive biomarker selection on high-throughput genomic data is a critical step in drug discovery. Many computational methods have been developed to serve this purpose including several deep neural network models. However, the modular relations among genomic features have been largely ignored in these methods. To overcome this limitation, the role of the gene co-expression network on drug sensitivity prediction is investigated in this study. Methods In this paper, we first introduce a network-based method to identify representative features for drug response prediction by using the gene co-expression network. Then, two graph-based neural network models are proposed and both models integrate gene network information directly into neural network for outcome prediction. Next, we present a large-scale comparative study among the proposed network-based methods, canonical prediction algorithms (i.e., Elastic Net, Random Forest, Partial Least Squares Regression, and Support Vector Regression), and deep neural network models for drug sensitivity prediction. All the source code and processed datasets in this study are available at https://github.com/compbiolabucf/drug-sensitivity-prediction . Results In the comparison of different feature selection methods and prediction methods on a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell line RNA-seq gene expression dataset with 50 different drug treatments, wemore »found that (1) the network-based feature selection method improves the prediction performance compared to Pearson correlation coefficients; (2) Random Forest outperforms all the other canonical prediction algorithms and deep neural network models; (3) the proposed graph-based neural network models show better prediction performance compared to deep neural network model; (4) the prediction performance is drug dependent and it may relate to the drug’s mechanism of action. Conclusions Network-based feature selection method and prediction models improve the performance of the drug response prediction. The relations between the genomic features are more robust and stable compared to the correlation between each individual genomic feature and the drug response in high dimension and low sample size genomic datasets.« less