Additional file 1 of MetaPro: a scalable and reproducible data processing and analysis pipeline for metatranscriptomic investigation of microbial communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Fig. S1. Read relationships of HUMAnN3 and SAMSA2 against The Gold standard. Chord diagrams showing the relationships of the gold-standard annotated reads of the NOD mouse gut (A) and kimchi datasets (B) as they are processed by the HUMAnN3 and SAMSA2 pipelines. Each arc of the diagram is a category of reads. Each band joining 2 arcs represents the proportion of reads that map between categories. Many of the unidentified mouse gut reads in HUMAnN3 were identified as Parabacteroides ASF519. Similar to MetaPro, SAMSA2 identified a portion of the Parabacteroides ASF519 gold-standard reads to be Parabacteroides goldsteinii. In the kimchi set, HUMAnN3 has more branching chords than MetaPro. SAMSA2 has a larger proportion of reads in Other organisms compared to MetaPro. In an ideal scenario, there would be a 1:1 relationship between the Gold-standard and the pipelines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.670 | 0.181 |
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".