EasyMap - An Interactive Web Tool for Evaluating and Comparing Associations of Clinical Variables and Microbiome Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most common tasks in microbiome studies is comparing microbial profiles across various groups of people (e.g., sick vs. healthy). Routinely, researchers use multivariate linear regression models to address these challenges, such as linear regression packages, MaAsLin2, LEfSe, etc. In many cases, it is unclear which metadata variables should be included in the linear model, as many human-associated variables are correlated with one another. Thus, multiple models are often tested, each including a different set of variables, however the challenge of selecting the metadata variables in the final model remains. Here, we present EasyMap, an interactive online tool allowing for (1) running multiple multivariate linear regression models, on the same features and metadata; (2) visualizing the associations between microbial features and clinical metadata found in each model; and (3) comparing across the various models to identify the critical metadata variables and select the optimal model. EasyMap provides a side-by-side visualization of association results across the various models, each with additional metadata variables, enabling us to evaluate the impact of each metadata variable on the associated feature. EasyMap's interface enables filtering associations by significance, focusing on specific microbes and finding the robust associations that are found across multiple models. While EasyMap was designed to analyze microbiome data, it can handle any other tabular data with numeric features and metadata variables. EasyMap takes the common task of multivariate linear regression to the next level, with an intuitive and simple user interface, allowing for wide comparisons of multiple models to identify the robust microbial feature associations. EasyMap is available at http://yassour.rcs.huji.ac.il/easymap.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.034 |
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".