Rapid and accurate taxonomic classification of insect (class Insecta) cytochrome <i>c</i> oxidase subunit 1 (<scp>COI</scp>) <scp>DNA</scp> barcode sequences using a naïve Bayesian classifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current methods to identify unknown insect (class Insecta) cytochrome c oxidase (COI barcode) sequences often rely on thresholds of distances that can be difficult to define, sequence similarity cut‐offs, or monophyly. Some of the most commonly used metagenomic classification methods do not provide a measure of confidence for the taxonomic assignments they provide. The aim of this study was to use a naïve Bayesian classifier (Wang et al. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2007; 73: 5261) to automate taxonomic assignments for large batches of insect COI sequences such as data obtained from high‐throughput environmental sequencing. This method provides rank‐flexible taxonomic assignments with an associated bootstrap support value, and it is faster than the blast‐based methods commonly used in environmental sequence surveys. We have developed and rigorously tested the performance of three different training sets using leave‐one‐out cross‐validation, two field data sets, and targeted testing of Lepidoptera, Diptera and Mantodea sequences obtained from the Barcode of Life Data system. We found that type I error rates, incorrect taxonomic assignments with a high bootstrap support, were already relatively low but could be lowered further by ensuring that all query taxa are actually present in the reference database. Choosing bootstrap support cut‐offs according to query length and summarizing taxonomic assignments to more inclusive ranks can also help to reduce error while retaining the maximum number of assignments. Additionally, we highlight gaps in the taxonomic and geographic representation of insects in public sequence databases that will require further work by taxonomists to improve the quality of assignments generated using any method.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".