Beta-diversity distance matrices for microbiome sample size and power calculations — How to obtain good estimates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
sample size or power calculations for such study designs, appropriate within and between group distance distributions can be challenging to obtain. When available, pilot study data, or data from prior studies of similar design should provide realistic distance estimates. However, when these are not available, distances can be extracted from available studies where one can assume similar beta-diversity. Alternatively, distances can be generated by simulation methods. Here, we describe and illustrate these three strategies for obtaining realistic distance matrices. For simulation methods, we illustrate the procedures required starting from existing benchmark data, as well as how to simulate directly from population assumptions. Using data from the American Gut project, we provide tables of observed distances for use by researchers planning their own studies, as well as R codes for generating similar matrices in other datasets. Furthermore, for simulated data, we compare methods, provide R codes, and demonstrate how challenging it is to obtain realistic distance distributions without any benchmark data. This code and illustrative distance tables are provided by the IMPACTT Consortium as a resource to the microbiome research community.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it