Calibrating spatiotemporal models of microbial communities to microscopy data: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatiotemporal models that account for heterogeneity within microbial communities rely on single-cell data for calibration and validation. Such data, commonly collected via microscopy and flow cytometry, have been made more accessible by recent advances in microfluidics platforms and data processing pipelines. However, validating models against such data poses significant challenges. Validation practices vary widely between modelling studies; systematic and rigorous methods have not been widely adopted. Similar challenges are faced by the (macrobial) ecology community, in which systematic calibration approaches are often employed to improve quantitative predictions from computational models. Here, we review single-cell observation techniques that are being applied to study microbial communities and the calibration strategies that are being employed for accompanying spatiotemporal models. To facilitate future calibration efforts, we have compiled a list of summary statistics relevant for quantifying spatiotemporal patterns in microbial communities. Finally, we highlight some recently developed techniques that hold promise for improved model calibration, including algorithmic guidance of summary statistic selection and machine learning approaches for efficient model simulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".