Mock microbial community meta‐analysis using different trimming of amplicon read lengths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trimming of sequencing reads is a pre-processing step that aims to discard sequence segments such as primers, adapters and low quality nucleotides that will interfere with clustering and classification steps. We evaluated the impact of trimming length of paired-end 16S and 18S rRNA amplicon reads on the ability to reconstruct the taxonomic composition and relative abundances of communities with a known composition in both even and uneven proportions. We found that maximizing read retention maximizes recall but reduces precision by increasing false positives. The presence of expected taxa was accurately predicted across broad trim length ranges but recovering original relative proportions remains a difficult challenge. We show that parameters that maximize taxonomic recovery do not simultaneously maximize relative abundance accuracy. Trim length represents one of several experimental parameters that have non-uniform impact across microbial clades, making it a difficult parameter to optimize. This study offers insights, guidelines, and helps researchers assess the significance of their decisions when trimming raw reads in a microbiome analysis based on overlapping or non-overlapping paired-end amplicons.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".