Random sampling associated with microbial profiling leads to overestimated stochasticity inference in community assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Revealing the mechanisms governing the complex community assembly over space and time is a central issue in ecology. Null models have been developed to quantitatively disentangle the relative importance of deterministic vs. stochastic processes in structuring the compositional variations of biological communities. Similar approaches have been recently extended to the field of microbial ecology. However, the profiling of highly diverse biological communities (e.g. microbial communities) is severely influenced by random sampling issues, leading to undersampled community profiles and overestimated β-diversity, which may further affect stochasticity inference in community assembly. By implementing simulated datasets, this study demonstrated that microbial stochasticity inference was also affected due to random sampling issues associated with microbial profiling. The effects on microbial stochasticity inference for the whole community and the abundant subcommunities were different using different randomization methods in generating null communities. The stochasticity of rare subcommunities, however, was persistently overestimated no matter which randomization method was used. Comparatively, the stochastic ratio approach was more sensitive to random sampling issues, whereas the Raup-Crick metric was more affected by randomization methods. As more studies begin to focus on the mechanisms governing abundant and rare subcommunities, we urge cautions be taken for microbial stochasticity inference based on β-diversity, especially for rare subcommunities. Randomization methods to generate null communities shall also be carefully selected. When necessary, the cutoff used for judging the relative importance of deterministic vs. stochastic processes shall be redefined.
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 | 0.029 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".