Analyzing differences between microbiome communities using mixture distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a method to assess differences between microbiome communities that effectively models sparse count data and accounts for presence-absence bias frequently encountered when zeros are present. We assume that the observed data for each operational taxonomic unit is Poisson generated with the rate for each sample originating from an underlying rate distribution. We propose to model this distribution using a mixture model, specifying the components based on the posterior rate distribution of a count and estimating the optimal weights using a least squares objective function. The distribution incorporates varying resolutions of samples, a point mass for differentiating structural and nonstructural zeros, and a truncation point mass to account for high values that are too sparse to model. As mixture component specification is not always straightforward, a method to estimate a joint model from several mixture distributions using minimum distances of bootstrap iterates is proposed. Once the population rate distribution is approximated, we obtain sample-specific distributions by conditioning on the observed operational taxonomic unit count, resolution, and estimated mixture distribution and then use these to estimate pairwise distances for a permutation test. The method gives an accurate estimate of the true proportion of zeros for presence-absence, effectively models the distribution of low counts using the mixture distribution, and achieves good power for detecting differences in a variety of scenarios. The method is tested using a simulation study and applied to two microbiome datasets. In each case, the results are compared with a number of existing methods.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".