MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313545980 · doi:10.1128/spectrum.04180-22

Sweat and Sebum Preferences of the Human Skin Microbiota

2023· article· en· W4313545980 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Hannah Swaney, Amanda Nelsen, Shelby Sandstrom, Lindsay Kalan

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiomeSWEATHuman skinEcologyMicrobial ecologyContext (archaeology)NicheMicrobiologyBacteriaZoologyBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human skin microbiome is adapted to survive and thrive in the harsh environment of the skin, which is low in nutrient availability. To study skin microorganisms in a system that mimics the natural skin environment, we developed and tested a physiologically relevant, synthetic skin-like growth medium that is composed of compounds found in the human skin secretions sweat and sebum. We find that most skin-associated bacterial species tested prefer high concentrations of artificial sweat but that artificial sebum concentration preference varies from species to species, suggesting that sebum utilization may be an important contributor to skin microbiome composition. This study demonstrates the utility of a skin-like growth medium, which can be applied to diverse microbiological systems, and underscores the importance of studying microorganisms in an ecologically relevant context.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations86
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology SpectrumSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207