Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28978318›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

Interpretation of microbiota-based diagnostics by explaining individual classifier decisions.

A Eck, L M Zintgraf, E F J de Groot, T G J de Meij, T S Cohen, P H M Savelkoul, M Welling, A E Budding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

A EckDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.eckhauer@vumc.nl.
L M ZintgrafInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E F J de GrootDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T G J de MeijDepartment of Pediatric Gastroenterology, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T S CohenInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P H M SavelkoulDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M WellingInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A E BuddingDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, VU University medical center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe human microbiota is associated with various disease states and holds a great promise for non-invasive diagnostics. However, microbiota data is challenging for traditional diagnostic approaches: It is high-dimensional, sparse and comprises of high inter-personal variation. State of the art machine learning tools are therefore needed to achieve this goal. While these tools have the ability to learn from complex data and interpret patterns therein that cannot be identified by humans, they often operate as black boxes, offering no insight into their decision-making process. In most cases, it is difficult to represent the learning of a classifier in a comprehensible way, which makes them prone to be mistrusted, or even misused, in a clinical environment. In this study, we aim to elucidate microbiota-based classifier decisions in a biologically meaningful context to allow their interpretation.

resultsWe applied a method for explanation of classifier decisions on two microbiota datasets of increasing complexity: gut versus skin microbiota samples, and inflammatory bowel disease versus healthy gut microbiota samples. The algorithm simulates bacterial species as being unknown to a pre-trained classifier, and measures its effect on the outcome. Consequently, each patient is assigned a unique quantitative estimation of which species in their microbiota defined the classification of their sample. The algorithm was able to explain the classifier decisions well, demonstrated by our validation method, and the explanations were biologically consistent with recent microbiota findings.

conclusionsApplication of a method for explaining individual classifier decisions for complex microbiota analysis proved feasible and opens perspectives on personalized therapy. Providing an explanation to support a microbiota-based diagnosis could guide decisions of clinical microbiologists, and has the potential to increase their confidence in the outcome of such decision support systems. This may facilitate the development of new diagnostic applications.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeBacteriaEnteral NutritionHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesMeta-Analysis as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSkinSoftwareSpecies SpecificityInflammatory bowel disease (IBD)IS-proMachine learningMicrobiotaSupervised classification

Identifiers

PMID28978318
PMCPMC5628491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.