MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090909822 · doi:10.1128/msphere.00451-20

Assessing the Variation within the Oral Microbiome of Healthy Adults

2020· article· en· W3090909822 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacob T. Nearing, Vanessa DeClercq, Johan Van Limbergen, Morgan G. I. Langille

Bibliographic record

VenuemSphere · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNova Scotia Health Research FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)MicrobiomeOral MicrobiomePsychologyMedicineBiologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human oral cavity is inhabited by a diverse community of microbes, known as the human oral microbiome. These microbes play a role in maintaining both oral and systemic health and, as such, have been proposed to be useful biomarkers of disease. However, to identify these biomarkers, we first need to determine the composition and variation of the healthy oral microbiome. In this report, we investigate the oral microbiome of 1,049 healthy individuals to determine which genera and amplicon sequence variants are commonly found between individual oral microbiomes. We then further investigate how lifestyle, anthropometric, and dietary choices impact overall microbiome composition. Interestingly, the results from this investigation showed that while many features were significantly associated with oral microbiome composition, no single biological factor explained a variation larger than 2%. These results indicate that future work on biomarker detection may be encouraged by the lack of strong confounding factors.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations117
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemSphereSame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207