Machine Learning and Deep Learning Applications in Metagenomic Taxonomy and Functional Annotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shotgun sequencing of environmental DNA (i.e., metagenomics) has revolutionized the field of environmental microbiology, allowing the characterization of all microorganisms in a sequencing experiment. To identify the microbes in terms of taxonomy and biological activity, the sequenced reads must necessarily be aligned on known microbial genomes/genes. However, current alignment methods are limited in terms of speed and can produce a significant number of false positives when detecting bacterial species or false negatives in specific cases (virus, plasmids, and gene detection). Moreover, recent advances in metagenomics have enabled the reconstruction of new genomes using de novo binning strategies, but these genomes, not yet fully characterized, are not used in classic approaches, whereas machine and deep learning methods can use them as models. In this article, we attempted to review the different methods and their efficiency to improve the annotation of metagenomic sequences. Deep learning models have reached the performance of the widely used k-mer alignment-based tools, with better accuracy in certain cases; however, they still must demonstrate their robustness across the variety of environmental samples and across the rapid expansion of accessible genomes in databases.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".