Infants’ gut microbiome data: A Bayesian Marginal Zero-inflated Negative Binomial regression model for multivariate analyses of count data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The infants' gut microbiome is dynamic in nature. Literature has shown high inter-individual variability of gut microbial composition in the early years of infancy compared to adulthood. Although next-generation sequencing technologies are rapidly evolving, several statistical analysis aspects need to be addressed to capture the variability and dynamic nature of the infants' gut microbiome. In this study, we proposed a Bayesian Marginal Zero-inflated Negative Binomial (BAMZINB) model, addressing complexities associated with zero-inflation and multivariate structure of the infants' gut microbiome data. Here, we simulated 32 scenarios to compare the performance of BAMZINB with glmFit and BhGLM as the two other widely similar methods in the literature in handling zero-inflation, over-dispersion, and multivariate structure of the infants' gut microbiome. Then, we showed the performance of the BAMZINB approach on a real dataset using SKOT cohort (I and II) studies. Our simulation results showed that the BAMZINB model performed as well as those two methods in estimating the average abundance difference and had a better fit for almost all scenarios when the signal and sample size were large. Applying BAMZINB on SKOT cohorts showed remarkable changes in the average absolute abundance of specific bacteria from 9 to 18 months for infants of healthy and obese mothers. In conclusion, we recommend using the BAMZINB approach for infants' gut microbiome data taking zero-inflation and over-dispersion properties into account in multivariate analysis when comparing the average abundance difference.
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 | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".