Feedback-Based, System-Level Properties of Vertebrate-Microbial Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved characterization of infectious disease dynamics is required. To that end, three-dimensional (3D) data analysis of feedback-like processes may be considered. METHODS: To detect infectious disease data patterns, a systems biology (SB) and evolutionary biology (EB) approach was evaluated, which utilizes leukocyte data structures designed to diminish data variability and enhance discrimination. Using data collected from one avian and two mammalian (human and bovine) species infected with viral, parasite, or bacterial agents (both sensitive and resistant to antimicrobials), four data structures were explored: (i) counts or percentages of a single leukocyte type, such as lymphocytes, neutrophils, or macrophages (the classic approach), and three levels of the SB/EB approach, which assessed (ii) 2D, (iii) 3D, and (iv) multi-dimensional (rotating 3D) host-microbial interactions. RESULTS: In all studies, no classic data structure discriminated disease-positive (D+, or observations in which a microbe was isolated) from disease-negative (D-, or microbial-negative) groups: D+ and D- data distributions overlapped. In contrast, multi-dimensional analysis of indicators designed to possess desirable features, such as a single line of observations, displayed a continuous, circular data structure, whose abrupt inflections facilitated partitioning into subsets statistically significantly different from one another. In all studies, the 3D, SB/EB approach distinguished three (steady, positive, and negative) feedback phases, in which D- data characterized the steady state phase, and D+ data were found in the positive and negative phases. In humans, spatial patterns revealed false-negative observations and three malaria-positive data classes. In both humans and bovines, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections were discriminated from non-MRSA infections. CONCLUSIONS: More information can be extracted, from the same data, provided that data are structured, their 3D relationships are considered, and well-conserved (feedback-like) functions are estimated. Patterns emerging from such structures may distinguish well-conserved from recently developed host-microbial interactions. Applications include diagnosis, error detection, and modeling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".