Microbial diversity estimation and hill number calculation using the hierarchical Pitman-Yor process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human microbiome comprises the microorganisms that inhabit the various locales of the human body and plays a vital role in human health. The composition of a microbial population is often quantified through measures of species diversity, which summarize the number of species along with their relative abundances into a single value. In a finite microbiome sample, there will be species missing from the target population, which will affect the diversity estimates. METHODS: We employ a model based on the hierarchical Pitman-Yor (HPY) process to model the species abundance distributions over multiple populations. The model parameters are estimated using a Gibbs sampler. We also derive estimates of species diversity, conditional and unconditional on the observed data, as a function of the HPY parameters. Finally, we derive a general formula for the Hill numbers in the HPY context. RESULTS: We show that the Gibbs sampler for the HPY model performs well in simulations. We also show that the conditional estimates of diversity from the HPY model improve over naïve estimates when species are missing. Similarly, the conditional HPY estimates tend to perform better than the naïve estimates especially when the number of individuals sampled from a population is small. Finally, we illustrate results of applying the HPY model in an infant gut microbiome dataset.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".