MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016643551 · doi:10.7717/peerj.9001

CoproID predicts the source of coprolites and paleofeces using microbiome composition and host DNA content

2020· article· en· W3016643551 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Borry, Bryan Cordova, Angela Perri, Marsha C. Wibowo, Tanvi P. Honap, Jada Ko, Jie Yu, Kate Britton, Linus Girdland-Flink, Robert C. Power, Ingelise Stuijts, Domingo C. Salazar‐García, Courtney A. Hofman, Richard Hagan, Thérèse Kagone, Nicolas Méda, Hélène Carabin, David Jacobson, Karl J. Reinhard, Cecil M. Lewis, Aleksandar D. Kostic, Choongwon Jeong, Alexander Herbig, Alexander Hübner, Christina Warinner

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPaleopathology and ancient diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthMax-Planck-GesellschaftDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMetagenomicsMicrobiomeHost (biology)BiologyFecesComposition (language)EcologyGeneBioinformaticsGeneticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shotgun metagenomics applied to archaeological feces (paleofeces) can bring new insights into the composition and functions of human and animal gut microbiota from the past. However, paleofeces often undergo physical distortions in archaeological sediments, making their source species difficult to identify on the basis of fecal morphology or microscopic features alone. Here we present a reproducible and scalable pipeline using both host and microbial DNA to infer the host source of fecal material. We apply this pipeline to newly sequenced archaeological specimens and show that we are able to distinguish morphologically similar human and canine paleofeces, as well as non-fecal sediments, from a range of archaeological contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicPaleopathology and ancient diseasesFrench-language works237,207