-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add curations to semi-automated literature workflow #1223
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1223 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 42.51% 43.49% +0.97%
==========================================
Files 117 118 +1
Lines 8327 8190 -137
Branches 1963 1346 -617
==========================================
+ Hits 3540 3562 +22
+ Misses 4582 4464 -118
+ Partials 205 164 -41 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Hi @nagutm, please do a bit of reading on writing good pull requests before making your next issue/pull request. It's difficult to keep up with so many that are not descriptive, full of typos, etc. Some suggested resources: |
Per #1227 (comment), I have updated the value of the pr_added field to reflect what pull request # the row in |
curated_papers.tsv
with all papers identified till 2024-10-01
curated_papers.tsv
with all papers identified till 2024-10-01
This pull request updates the
curated_papers.tsv
file with all PubMed papers identified till 2024-10-01 in #1165.Here are some statistics about the classification of each paper based on relevancy_type so far:
Relevant (1) classifications: 14
Irrelevant (0) classifications: 40
** 1. 39104285 is a provider for UniProt IDs but was not curated due to the variable nature of the
uri_format
. 2. 38991851 was curated as a prefix but there was some discussion about whether it should be a provider instead. See #1194. Regardless, both of these were curated as relevant (1) which seems to be the more important classification.