MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321003731 · doi:10.1080/19490976.2023.2178797

How longitudinal data can contribute to our understanding of host genetic effects on the gut microbiome

2023· article· en· W4321003731 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGut Microbes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiomeMicrobial geneticsHost (biology)HeritabilityEvolutionary biologyPopulationGeneticsComputational biologyEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key component of microbiome research is understanding the role of host genetic influence on gut microbial composition. However, it can be difficult to link host genetics with gut microbial composition because host genetic similarity and environmental similarity are often correlated. Longitudinal microbiome data can supplement our understanding of the relative role of genetic processes in the microbiome. These data can reveal environmentally contingent host genetic effects, both in terms of controlling for environmental differences and in comparing how genetic effects differ by environment. Here, we explore four research areas where longitudinal data could lend new insights into host genetic effects on the microbiome: microbial heritability, microbial plasticity, microbial stability, and host and microbiome population genetics. We conclude with a discussion of methodological considerations for future studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.237 · 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