Proportionality-based association metrics in count compositional data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compositional data comprise vectors that describe the constituent parts of a whole. Data arising from various -omics platforms such as 16S and RNA sequencing are compositional in nature. In this kind of data, correlations between features on raw counts have no meaningful interpretation. Metrics of proportionality were formulated to address this problem. However, an inherent bias arises when these metrics are calculated empirically on count-based measures due to variability in read depths. We quantify the bias introduced by empirically calculating proportionality-based association metrics in count data. Additionally, we propose a means of estimating these metrics within a logit-normal multinomial model in pursuit of more accurate estimates. The model-based estimates are shown to outperform empirical estimates in simulated data and are applied to a mouse embryonic stem cell single-cell sequencing dataset, as well as a pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis metagenomic dataset.
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 | 0.045 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".