Supervised Machine Learning Enables Geospatial Microbial Provenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The recent increase in publicly available metagenomic datasets with geospatial metadata has made it possible to determine location-specific, microbial fingerprints from around the world. Such fingerprints can be useful for comparing microbial niches for environmental research, as well as for applications within forensic science and public health. To determine the regional specificity for environmental metagenomes, we examined 4305 shotgun-sequenced samples from the MetaSUB Consortium dataset – the most extensive public collection of urban microbiomes, spanning 60 different cities, 30 countries, and 6 continents. We were able to identify city-specific microbial fingerprints using supervised machine learning (SML) on the taxonomic classifications, and we also compared the performance of ten SML classifiers. We then further evaluated the five algorithms with the highest accuracy, with the city and continental accuracy ranging from 85-89% to 90-94%, respectively. We then used these results to develop Cassandra, a random-forest-based classifier that identifies indicator species to aid in fingerprinting and can infer higher-order microbial interactions at each site. We further tested the Cassandra algorithm on the Tara Oceans dataset, the largest collection of marine-based microbial genomes, where it classified the oceanic sample locations with 83% accuracy. These results and code show the utility of SML methods and Cassandra to identify bioindicator species across both oceanic and urban environments, which can help guide ongoing efforts in biotracing, environmental monitoring, and microbial forensics (MF).
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".