BIRDMAn: A Bayesian differential abundance framework that enables robust inference of host-microbe associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantifying the differential abundance (DA) of specific taxa among experimental groups in microbiome studies is challenging due to data characteristics (e.g., compositionality, sparsity) and specific study designs (e.g., repeated measures, meta-analysis, cross-over). Here we present BIRDMAn ( B ayesian I nferential R egression for D ifferential M icrobiome An alysis), a flexible DA method that can account for microbiome data characteristics and diverse experimental designs. Simulations show that BIRDMAn models are robust to uneven sequencing depth and provide a >20-fold improvement in statistical power over existing methods. We then use BIRDMAn to identify antibiotic-mediated perturbations undetected by other DA methods due to subject-level heterogeneity. Finally, we demonstrate how BIRDMAn can construct state-of-the-art cancer-type classifiers using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset, with substantial accuracy improvements over random forests and existing DA tools across multiple sequencing centers. Collectively, BIRDMAn extracts more informative biological signals while accounting for study-specific experimental conditions than existing approaches.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".