A survey on predicting microbe-disease associations: biological data and computational methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various microbes have proved to be closely related to the pathogenesis of human diseases. While many computational methods for predicting human microbe-disease associations (MDAs) have been developed, few systematic reviews on these methods have been reported. In this study, we provide a comprehensive overview of the existing methods. Firstly, we introduce the data used in existing MDA prediction methods. Secondly, we classify those methods into different categories by their nature and describe their algorithms and strategies in detail. Next, experimental evaluations are conducted on representative methods using different similarity data and calculation methods to compare their prediction performances. Based on the principles of computational methods and experimental results, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of those methods and propose suggestions for the improvement of prediction performances. Considering the problems of the MDA prediction at present stage, we discuss future work from three perspectives including data, methods and formulations at the end.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it