A cost and community perspective on the barriers to microbiome data reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbiome research is becoming a mature field with a wealth of data amassed from diverse ecosystems, yet the ability to fully leverage multi-omics data for reuse remains challenging. To provide a view into researchers' behavior and attitudes towards data reuse, we surveyed over 700 microbiome researchers to evaluate data sharing and reuse challenges. We found that many researchers are impeded by difficulties with metadata records, challenges with processing and bioinformatics, and problems with data repository submissions. We also explored the cost constraints of data reuse at each step of the data reuse process to better understand "pain points" and to provide a more quantitative perspective from sixteen active researchers. The bioinformatics and data processing step was estimated to be the most time consuming, which aligns with some of the most frequently reported challenges from the community survey. From these two approaches, we present evidence-based recommendations for how to address data sharing and reuse challenges with concrete actions for future work.
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 | 0.270 | 0.528 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".