Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There has been a lot of research about the role of the microbiome in various processes. The research has focused almost exclusively on the structure of the microbiome at a single time-point. There have been several studies that measure the microbiome from a particular environment over time. However, even in these studies, little has been done to study the temporal dynamics of the microbiome. In this paper, we begin to rectify this situation. We analyse a widely studied microbial data set that contains a time series of the microbiome from four body sites on two healthy individuals. We choose a data set based on healthy individuals because we are interested in the baseline temporal dynamics of the microbiome. Results For this analysis, we focus on the temporal dynamics of individual genera, ignoring the interactions. We use simple stochastic differential equation models to assess the following three questions. (1) Does the microbiome exhibit temporal continuity? (2) Does the microbiome have a stable state? (3) To better understand the temporal dynamics, how frequently should data be sampled in future studies? We find that a simple Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model which incorporates both temporal continuity and reversion to a stable state fits the data for all genera better than a Brownian motion model that contains only temporal continuity. The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model also fits the data better than modelling separate time points as independent. Under the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model, we calculate the variance of the estimated mean reversion rate (the speed with which each genus returns to its stable state). Based on this calculation, we are able to determine the optimal sample schemes for studying temporal dynamics. Conclusions There is evidence of temporal continuity for at least some genera; there is clear evidence of a stable state; and the optimal sampling frequency for studying temporal dynamics is in the range of one sample every 0.8–3.2 days.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".