Developing a Reproducible Microbiome Data Analysis Pipeline Using the Amazon Web Services Cloud for a Cancer Research Group: Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cloud computing for microbiome data sets can significantly increase working efficiencies and expedite the translation of research findings into clinical practice. The Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud provides an invaluable option for microbiome data storage, computation, and analysis. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to develop a microbiome data analysis pipeline by using AWS cloud and to conduct a proof-of-concept test for microbiome data storage, processing, and analysis. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was formed to develop and test a reproducible microbiome data analysis pipeline with multiple AWS cloud services that could be used for storage, computation, and data analysis. The microbiome data analysis pipeline developed in AWS was tested by using two data sets: 19 vaginal microbiome samples and 50 gut microbiome samples. RESULTS: Using AWS features, we developed a microbiome data analysis pipeline that included Amazon Simple Storage Service for microbiome sequence storage, Linux Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances (ie, servers) for data computation and analysis, and security keys to create and manage the use of encryption for the pipeline. Bioinformatics and statistical tools (ie, Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology 2 and RStudio) were installed within the Linux EC2 instances to run microbiome statistical analysis. The microbiome data analysis pipeline was performed through command-line interfaces within the Linux operating system or in the Mac operating system. Using this new pipeline, we were able to successfully process and analyze 50 gut microbiome samples within 4 hours at a very low cost (a c4.4xlarge EC2 instance costs $0.80 per hour). Gut microbiome findings regarding diversity, taxonomy, and abundance analyses were easily shared within our research team. CONCLUSIONS: Building a microbiome data analysis pipeline with AWS cloud is feasible. This pipeline is highly reliable, computationally powerful, and cost effective. Our AWS-based microbiome analysis pipeline provides an efficient tool to conduct microbiome data analysis.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".