Decoding the Microbiome-Metabolome Nexus: A Systematic Benchmark of Integrative Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The exponential growth of high-throughput sequencing technologies was an incredible opportunity for researchers to combine various -omics within computational frameworks. Among these, metagenomics and metabolomics data have gained an increasing interest due to their involvement in many complex diseases. However, currently, no standard seems to emerge for jointly integrating both microbiome and metabolome datasets within statistical models. Results Thus, in this paper we comprehensively benchmarked nineteen different integrative methods to untangle the complex relationships between microorganisms and metabolites. Methods evaluated in this paper cover most of the researcher’s goals such as global associations, data summarization, individual associations, and feature selection. Through an extensive and realistic simulation we identified best methods across questions commonly encountered by researchers. We applied the most promising methods in an application to real gut microbial datasets, unraveling complementary biological processes involved between the two omics. We also provided practical guidelines for practitioners tailored to specific scientific questions and data types. Conclusion In summary, our work paves the way toward establishing research standards when mutually analyzing metagenomics and metabolomics data, building foundations for future methodological developments.
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 | 0.035 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".