MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402843957 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2024.1358028

Predicting host species susceptibility to influenza viruses and coronaviruses using genome data and machine learning: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4402843957 on OpenAlexafffund
Famke Alberts, Olaf Berke, Lucas de Almeida Rocha, Sheila Keay, Grazieli Maboni, Zvonimir Poljak

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceCanada First Research Excellence FundGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsGenomeBiologyHost (biology)PandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakInfluenza A virusVirologyEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyVirusGeneticsGeneMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Predicting which species are susceptible to viruses (i.e., host range) is important for understanding and developing effective strategies to control viral outbreaks in both humans and animals. The use of machine learning and bioinformatic approaches to predict viral hosts has been expanded with advancements in in-silico techniques. We conducted a scoping review to identify the breadth of machine learning methods applied to influenza and coronavirus genome data for the identification of susceptible host species. Methods The protocol for this scoping review is available at https://hdl.handle.net/10214/26112 . Five online databases were searched, and 1,217 citations, published between January 2000 and May 2022, were obtained, and screened in duplicate for English language and in-silico research, covering the use of machine learning to identify susceptible species to viruses. Results Fifty-three relevant publications were identified for data charting. The breadth of research was extensive including 32 different machine learning algorithms used in combination with 29 different feature selection methods and 43 different genome data input formats. There were 20 different methods used by authors to assess accuracy. Authors mostly used influenza viruses (n = 31/53 publications, 58.5%), however, more recent publications focused on coronaviruses and other viruses in combination with influenza viruses (n = 22/53, 41.5%). The susceptible animal groups authors most used were humans (n = 57/77 analyses, 74.0%), avian (n = 35/77 45.4%), and swine (n = 28/77, 36.4%). In total, 53 different hosts were used and, in most publications, data from multiple hosts was used. Discussion The main gaps in research were a lack of standardized reporting of methodology and the use of broad host categories for classification. Overall, approaches to viral host identification using machine learning were diverse and extensive.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0180.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.460
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.045 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207