Skip to content

Commit ab98397

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request #334 from monarch-initiative/clarify-evidence-source-docs
Clarify evidence_source documents publication evidence type, not curation method
2 parents c38dbdb + a0c2532 commit ab98397

Some content is hidden

Large Commits have some content hidden by default. Use the searchbox below for content that may be hidden.

46 files changed

+3725
-2
lines changed

.claude/skills/initiate-new-disorder-creation/SKILL.md

Lines changed: 6 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -114,10 +114,13 @@ phenotypes:
114114
evidence:
115115
- reference: PMID:XXXXXXXX
116116
supports: <SUPPORT | REFUTE | PARTIAL>
117+
evidence_source: <HUMAN_CLINICAL | MODEL_ORGANISM | IN_VITRO | COMPUTATIONAL>
117118
snippet: "<Exact quote from abstract>"
118119
explanation: "<Why this supports the phenotype>"
119120
```
120121

122+
**IMPORTANT**: The `evidence_source` field classifies **the type of evidence in the cited publication** (human study, animal model, cell culture, computational simulation), NOT whether the curation was performed by an AI agent. Always classify based on what the paper reports, regardless of who or what is doing the curation.
123+
121124
The same generic `evidence` list schema is used for most types.
122125

123126
### Step 5: Add term objects
@@ -216,9 +219,12 @@ All evidence items MUST:
216219
1. Use real PMIDs from the research query results
217220
2. Have snippets that are exact quotes from abstracts
218221
3. Include explanations linking evidence to claims
222+
4. Set `evidence_source` based on the **publication's evidence type** (human clinical, animal model, in vitro, computational), NOT based on whether an AI agent performed the curation
219223

220224
**NEVER fabricate PMIDs or paraphrase snippets.**
221225

226+
**Evidence Source Classification**: When adding `evidence_source`, ask "What kind of study does this paper report?" not "How was this entry curated?" A computational fluid dynamics study gets `COMPUTATIONAL`, a mouse model study gets `MODEL_ORGANISM`, a human clinical trial gets `HUMAN_CLINICAL` - regardless of whether the curation was done by a human or an AI agent.
227+
222228
## Validation Errors and Fixes
223229

224230
### "Term not found in ontology"

CLAUDE.md

Lines changed: 4 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -96,11 +96,13 @@ evidence:
9696
explanation: "Why this evidence supports/refutes the claim"
9797
```
9898
99-
Set `evidence_source` to clarify provenance:
99+
**IMPORTANT**: The `evidence_source` field classifies **the type of evidence presented in the cited publication**, NOT how the curation was performed. Even if an AI agent is curating the entry, `evidence_source` describes what kind of study the paper reports (human clinical trial, animal model, cell culture, computational simulation, etc.).
100+
101+
Set `evidence_source` to clarify the publication's evidence type:
100102
- HUMAN_CLINICAL for direct human observations (default when not specified)
101103
- MODEL_ORGANISM when citing animal model recapitulation
102104
- IN_VITRO for cell-based experiments
103-
- COMPUTATIONAL for in silico predictions
105+
- COMPUTATIONAL for in silico predictions/simulations reported in the paper
104106
- OTHER for evidence types that do not fit the above categories
105107
Model organism evidence should not be the only support for human phenotypes; keep it distinct via `evidence_source`.
106108

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)