MT-MAG: Accurate and interpretable machine learning for complete or partial taxonomic assignments of metagenome-assembled genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We propose MT-MAG, a novel machine learning-based software tool for the complete or partial hierarchically-structured taxonomic classification of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). MT-MAG is alignment-free, with k -mer frequencies being the only feature used to distinguish a DNA sequence from another (herein k = 7). MT-MAG is capable of classifying large and diverse metagenomic datasets: a total of 245.68 Gbp in the training sets, and 9.6 Gbp in the test sets analyzed in this study. In addition to complete classifications, MT-MAG offers a “partial classification” option, whereby a classification at a higher taxonomic level is provided for MAGs that cannot be classified to the Species level. MT-MAG outputs complete or partial classification paths, and interpretable numerical classification confidences of its classifications, at all taxonomic ranks. To assess the performance of MT-MAG, we define a “weighted classification accuracy,” with a weighting scheme reflecting the fact that partial classifications at different ranks are not equally informative. For the two benchmarking datasets analyzed (genomes from human gut microbiome species, and bacterial and archaeal genomes assembled from cow rumen metagenomic sequences), MT-MAG achieves an average of 87.32% in weighted classification accuracy. At the Species level, MT-MAG outperforms DeepMicrobes, the only other comparable software tool, by an average of 34.79% in weighted classification accuracy. In addition, MT-MAG is able to completely classify an average of 67.70% of the sequences at the Species level, compared with DeepMicrobes which only classifies 47.45%. Moreover, MT-MAG provides additional information for sequences that it could not classify at the Species level, resulting in the partial or complete classification of 95.13%, of the genomes in the datasets analyzed. Lastly, unlike other taxonomic assignment tools (e.g., GDTB-Tk), MT-MAG is an alignment-free and genetic marker-free tool, able to provide additional bioinformatics analysis to confirm existing or tentative taxonomic assignments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
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".