Balances: a New Perspective for Microbiome Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT High-throughput sequencing technologies have revolutionized microbiome research by allowing the relative quantification of microbiome composition and function in different environments. One of the main goals in microbiome analysis is the identification of microbial species that are differentially abundant among groups of samples, or whose abundance is associated with a variable of interest. Most available methods for microbiome abundance testing perform univariate tests for each microbial species or taxa separately, ignoring the compositional nature of microbiome data. We propose an alternative approach for microbiome abundance testing that consists on the identification of two groups of taxa whose relative abundance, or balance, is associated with the response variable of interest. This approach is appealing, since it has direct translation to the biological concept of ecological balance between species in an ecosystem. In this work, we present selbal , a greedy stepwise algorithm for balance selection. We illustrate the algorithm with 16s abundance data from an HIV-microbiome study and a Crohn-microbiome study. Importance A more meaningful approach for microbiome abundance testing is presented. Instead of testing each taxon separately we propose to explore abundance balances among groups of taxa. This approach acknowledges the compositional nature of microbiome data.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".