Abstract A023: Assessing the reproducibility crisis in vaginal microbiome studies for clinical applications in endometrial cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent associations between vaginal microbiota and gynecological cancer have led to high-throughput sequencing datasets identifying diagnostic biomarkers for Endometrial Cancer (EC). However, lack of bioinformatics standards results in inconsistent independent studies with poor reproducibility, making them clinically inapplicable. This study leverages publicly available amplicon sequence data to address the reproducibility of EC microbiome studies. We implemented bioinformatics pipelines from five studies to reproduce and measure the replicability of published results across cohorts using metrics such as alpha diversity, beta diversity and differentially expressed taxa. We further evaluated separability between benign and cancer patients at different taxonomic levels (phylum, class, order, family, and genus) within and across datasets using boosted tree classifiers and Area Under the Curve (AUC) as the performance metric. While we reproduced the general trend of observing higher microbial diversity in EC compared to healthy controls, we found irregularities in two cohorts. Using beta diversity distance metrics, we identified that histology alone explains less than 3% of the variance in all cohorts. Three microbiome differential abundance methods were used in the five studies. While they all agree on a decrease in the Lactobacillus genus in EC patients, there is no consensus on other taxa associated with EC. We also found that separability between benign and cancerous conditions is highest at the class level, having an AUC score of 0.86. In subsequent steps, we will perform an integrative analysis to identify an EC vaginal microbiome predictive signature that is preserved across all five cohorts, benefiting screening programs. Citation Format: Dollina D. Dodani, Aline Talhouk. Assessing the reproducibility crisis in vaginal microbiome studies for clinical applications in endometrial cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Transforming Care through Science; 2023 Nov 16-18; Boston, Massachusetts. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2024;30(5_Suppl):Abstract nr A023.
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 | 0.074 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".