Microbiotyping the Sinonasal Microbiome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study offers a novel description of the sinonasal microbiome, through an unsupervised machine learning approach combining dimensionality reduction and clustering. We apply our method to the International Sinonasal Microbiome Study (ISMS) dataset of 410 sinus swab samples. We propose three main sinonasal “microbiotypes” or “states”: the first is Corynebacterium-dominated, the second is Staphylococcus-dominated, and the third dominated by the other core genera of the sinonasal microbiome (Streptococcus, Haemophilus, Moraxella, and Pseudomonas). The prevalence of the three microbiotypes studied did not differ between healthy and diseased sinuses, but differences in their distribution were evident based on geography. We also describe a potential reciprocal relationship between Corynebacterium species and Staphylococcus aureus, suggesting that a certain microbial equilibrium between various players is reached in the sinuses. We validate our approach by applying it to a separate 16S rRNA gene sequence dataset of 97 sinus swabs from a different patient cohort. Sinonasal microbiotyping may prove useful in reducing the complexity of describing sinonasal microbiota. It may drive future studies aimed at modeling microbial interactions in the sinuses and in doing so may facilitate the development of a tailored patient-specific approach to the treatment of sinus disease in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".