A field guide for the compositional analysis of any-omics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has made it possible to determine the sequence and relative abundance of all nucleotides in a biological or environmental sample. A cornerstone of NGS is the quantification of RNA or DNA presence as counts. However, these counts are not counts per se: their magnitude is determined arbitrarily by the sequencing depth, not by the input material. Consequently, counts must undergo normalization prior to use. Conventional normalization methods require a set of assumptions: they assume that the majority of features are unchanged and that all environments under study have the same carrying capacity for nucleotide synthesis. These assumptions are often untestable and may not hold when heterogeneous samples are compared. RESULTS: Methods developed within the field of compositional data analysis offer a general solution that is assumption-free and valid for all data. Herein, we synthesize the extant literature to provide a concise guide on how to apply compositional data analysis to NGS count data. CONCLUSIONS: In highlighting the limitations of total library size, effective library size, and spike-in normalizations, we propose the log-ratio transformation as a general solution to answer the question, "Relative to some important activity of the cell, what is changing?"
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.094 |
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".