Predicting environmental stressor levels with machine learning: a comparison between amplicon sequencing, metagenomics, and total RNA sequencing based on taxonomically assigned data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Microbes are increasingly (re)considered for environmental assessments because they are powerful indicators for the health of ecosystems. The complexity of microbial communities necessitates powerful novel tools to derive conclusions for environmental decision-makers, and machine learning is a promising option in that context. While amplicon sequencing is typically applied to assess microbial communities, metagenomics and total RNA sequencing (herein summarized as omics-based methods) can provide a more holistic picture of microbial biodiversity at sufficient sequencing depths. Despite this advantage, amplicon sequencing and omics-based methods have not yet been compared for taxonomy-based environmental assessments with machine learning. Methods: In this study, we applied 16S and ITS-2 sequencing, metagenomics, and total RNA sequencing to samples from a stream mesocosm experiment that investigated the impacts of two aquatic stressors, insecticide and increased fine sediment deposition, on stream biodiversity. We processed the data using similarity clustering and denoising (only applicable to amplicon sequencing) as well as multiple taxonomic levels, data types, feature selection, and machine learning algorithms and evaluated the stressor prediction performance of each generated model for a total of 1,536 evaluated combinations of taxonomic datasets and data-processing methods. Results: Sequencing and data-processing methods had a substantial impact on stressor prediction. While omics-based methods detected a higher diversity of taxa than amplicon sequencing, 16S sequencing outperformed all other sequencing methods in terms of stressor prediction based on the Matthews Correlation Coefficient. However, even the highest observed performance for 16S sequencing was still only moderate. Omics-based methods performed poorly overall, but this was likely due to insufficient sequencing depth. Data types had no impact on performance while feature selection significantly improved performance for omics-based methods but not for amplicon sequencing. Discussion: We conclude that amplicon sequencing might be a better candidate for machine-learning-based environmental stressor prediction than omics-based methods, but the latter require further research at higher sequencing depths to confirm this conclusion. More sampling could improve stressor prediction performance, and while this was not possible in the context of our study, thousands of sampling sites are monitored for routine environmental assessments, providing an ideal framework to further refine the approach for possible implementation in environmental diagnostics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".