Concepts and criteria defining emerging microbiome applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, microbiomes and their potential applications for human, animal or plant health, food production and environmental management came into the spotlight of major national and international policies and strategies. This has been accompanied by substantial R&D investments in both public and private sectors, with an increasing number of products entering the market. Despite widespread agreement on the potential of microbiomes and their uses across disciplines, stakeholders and countries, there is no consensus on what defines a microbiome application. This often results in non-comprehensive communication or insufficient documentation making commercialisation and acceptance of the novel products challenging. To showcase the complexity of this issue we discuss two selected, well-established applications and propose criteria defining a microbiome application and their conditions of use for clear communication, facilitating suitable regulatory frameworks and building trust among stakeholders.
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 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".