MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284701690 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010108

A Bayesian method for identifying associations between response variables and bacterial community composition

2022· article· en· W4284701690 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian J. Verster, Nicholas Petronella, Judy Green, Fernando Matias, Stephen P.J. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityLasso (programming language)BiologyFeature selectionStatisticsRegressionMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining associations between intestinal bacteria and continuously measured physiological outcomes is important for understanding the bacteria-host relationship but is not straightforward since abundance data (compositional data) are not normally distributed. To address this issue, we developed a fully Bayesian linear regression model (BRACoD; Bayesian Regression Analysis of Compositional Data) with physiological measurements (continuous data) as a function of a matrix of relative bacterial abundances. Bacteria can be classified as operational taxonomic units or by taxonomy (genus, family, etc.). Bacteria associated with the physiological measurement were identified using a Bayesian variable selection method: Stochastic Search Variable Selection. The output is a list of inclusion probabilities ([Formula: see text]) and coefficients that indicate the strength of the association ([Formula: see text]) for each bacterial taxa. Tests with simulated communities showed that adopting a cut point value of [Formula: see text] ≥ 0.3 for identifying included bacteria optimized the true positive rate (TPR) while maintaining a false positive rate (FPR) of ≤ 5%. At this point, the chances of identifying non-contributing bacteria were low and all well-established contributors were included. Comparison with other methods showed that BRACoD (at [Formula: see text] ≥ 0.3) had higher precision and a higher TPR than a commonly used center log transformed LASSO procedure (clr-LASSO) as well as higher TPR than an off-the-shelf Spike and Slab method after center log transformation (clr-SS). BRACoD was also less likely to include non-contributing bacteria that merely correlate with contributing bacteria. Analysis of a rat microbiome experiment identified 47 operational taxonomic units that contributed to fecal butyrate levels. Of these, 31 were positively and 16 negatively associated with butyrate. Consistent with their known role in butyrate metabolism, most of these fell within the Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae. We conclude that BRACoD provides a more precise and accurate method for determining bacteria associated with a continuous physiological outcome compared to clr-LASSO. It is more sensitive than a generalized clr-SS algorithm, although it has a higher FPR. Its ability to distinguish genuine contributors from correlated bacteria makes it better suited to discriminating bacteria that directly contribute to an outcome. The algorithm corrects for the distortions arising from compositional data making it appropriate for analysis of microbiome data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207