MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4289549683 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/rfp94

Metagenomic datasets of cerebrospinal fluid from a small cohort of MS/non-MS patients do not show DNA from the fungal genus Trichosporon

2018· preprint· en· W4289549683 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ralf Stephan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Infections and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetagenomicsDNA sequencingBiologyCerebrospinal fluidCohortTrichosporonGenomeComputational biologyDNAMedicineGeneGeneticsPathologyYeast

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In [2] Alonso et al used nested PCR assays together with next-generation sequencing to find Trichosporon species in the nervous tissue of 10 patients with MS. We deemed it possible that the fungus would be present in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. Whole metagenomic shotgun (WMGS) sequencing allows detection of any organism in a sample. With Trichosporon any detection would be a true positive because these fungi are not known to be on the skin, or as typical lab contamination. We screened public WMGS datasets of CSF from a cohort of 43 Canadian patients (28 MS, 13 non-MS)[1], using Kraken2[7], the ultrafast kmer-based classifier, using a fungal database augmented with all cleaned available Trichosporon genome assemblies from the NCBI. Blasting the marked reads against an equally augmented blastn database revealed no alignments with an evalue <= 1e-50. In general Kraken2 marked not more than 5 consecutive kmers in any read, which is a clear negative.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFungal Infections and Studies→French-language works237,207→