Understanding How Microbiomes Influence The Systems They Inhabit: Moving From A Correlative To A Causal Research Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Translating the ever-increasing wealth of information on microbiomes (environment, host, or built environment) to advance the understanding of system-level processes is proving to be an exceptional research challenge. One reason for this challenge is that relationships between characteristics of microbiomes and the system-level processes they influence are often evaluated in the absence of a robust conceptual framework and reported without elucidating the underlying causal mechanisms. The reliance on correlative approaches limits the potential to expand the inference of a single relationship to additional systems and advance the field. We propose that research focused on how microbiomes influence the systems they inhabit should work within a common framework and target known microbial processes that contribute to the system-level processes of interest. Here we identify three distinct categories of microbiome characteristics (microbial processes, microbial community properties, and microbial membership) and propose a framework to empirically link each of these categories to each other and the broader system level processes they affect. We posit that it is particularly important to distinguish microbial community properties that can be predicted from constituent taxa (community aggregated traits) from and those properties that are currently unable to be predicted from constituent taxa (emergent properties). Existing methods in microbial ecology can be applied to more explicitly elucidate properties within each of these categories and connect these three categories of microbial characteristics with each other. We view this proposed framework, gleaned from a breadth of research on environmental microbiomes and ecosystem processes, as a promising pathway with the potential to advance discovery and understanding across a broad range of microbiome science.
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 | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".