Revealing microbial assemblage structure in the human gut microbiome using latent Dirichlet allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research has revealed that there are various microbial species in the human gut microbiome. To clarify the structure of the human gut microbiome, many data mining methods have been applied to microbial composition data. Cluster analysis, one of the key data mining methods that have been used in human gut microbiome research, can classify the human gut microbiome into three clusters, called enterotypes. The human gut microbiome has been suggested to be composed of the microbial assemblages or groups of co-occurring microbes, and one human gut microbiome can contain several microbial assemblages. However, cluster analysis can cluster samples into groups without capturing minor assemblages. In addition, a reliable method of assemblage detection has not been established, and little is known about the distributions of microbial assemblages at a population-level scale. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to clarify the microbial assemblages in the human gut microbiome. In this study, we detected gut microbiome assemblages using a latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) method, which was first proposed for the classification of documents in natural language processing. We applied LDA to a large-scale human gut metagenome dataset and found that a four-assemblage LDA model can represent relationships between enterotypes and assemblages with high interpretability. This model indicates that each individual tends to have several assemblages, and each of three assemblages corresponded to each enterotype. However, the C-assemblage can exist in all enterotypes. Interestingly, the dominant genera of the C-assemblage ( Clostridium, Eubacterium, Faecalibacterium, Roseburia, Coprococcus , and Butyrivibrio ) included butyrate-producing species such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii . Finally, we revealed that genera mainly appearing in the same assemblage were correlated to each other. We conducted an assemblage analysis on a large-scale human gut metagenome dataset using LDA, a powerful method for detection of microbial assemblages. This approach has the potential to reveal the structure of the human gut microbiome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".