ArticleMicrobiome2018
Fecal source identification using random forest.
Article in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Contribution of nitrogen sources to streams in mixed-use watershed varies seasonally in a temperate region.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-analysis cum machine learning approaches address the structure and biogeochemical potential of marine copepod associated bacteriobiomes.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Usefulness of Random Forest Algorithm in Predicting Severe Acute Pancreatitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Trial
- Decoding the microbiome: artificial intelligence-targeted gut microenvironment breakthroughs in personalized cancer therapy.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Early identification of acute kidney injury progression in critically ill patients with sepsis: interpretable machine learning approach.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- A manually curated pig gut microbiome dataset for precision feeding.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Exploratory identification of intestinal health and productive performance patterns in post-weaning piglets using explainable machine learning.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Associations between gut microbiota and personality traits: insights from a captive common marmoset (Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Characterization of microbiota signatures in Iberian pig strains using machine learning algorithms.Animal microbiome · 2025Article
- New bitongling regulates gut microbiota to predict angiogenesis in rheumatoid arthritis via the gut-joint axis: a deep neural network approach.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Beyond borders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human-specific faecal markers across geographical settings.Critical reviews in environmental science and technology · 2025Review
- A global comparison of surface and subsurface microbiomes reveals large-scale biodiversity gradients, and a marine-terrestrial divide.Science advances · 2024Article
- Interpretable metric learning in comparative metagenomics: The adaptive Haar-like distance.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Consistent effects of independent domestication events on the plant microbiota.Current biology : CB · 2024Article
- Trophic modulation of endophytes by rhizosphere protists.The ISME journal · 2024Article
- Unveiling the Connection between Microbiota and Depressive Disorder through Machine Learning.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Integration of Phenotypes in Microbiome Networks for Designing Synthetic Communities: a Study of Mycobiomes in the Grafted Tomato System.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2023Article
- Salinity Impacts the FunctionalMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Leveraging Scheme for Cross-Study Microbiome Machine Learning Prediction and Feature Evaluations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Application of interpretable machine learning algorithms to predict distant metastasis in osteosarcoma.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClostridiales and Bacteroidales are uniquely adapted to the gut environment and have co-evolved with their hosts resulting in convergent microbiome patterns within mammalian species. As a result, members of Clostridiales and Bacteroidales are particularly suitable for identifying sources of fecal contamination in environmental samples. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their predictive power and development of computational approaches is lacking. Given the global public health concern for waterborne disease, accurate identification of fecal pollution sources is essential for effective risk assessment and management. Here, we use random forest algorithm and 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences assigned to Clostridiales and Bacteroidales to identify common fecal pollution sources. We benchmarked the accuracy, consistency, and sensitivity of our classification approach using fecal, environmental, and artificial in silico generated samples.
resultsClostridiales and Bacteroidales classifiers were composed mainly of sequences that displayed differential distributions (host-preferred) among sewage, cow, deer, pig, cat, and dog sources. Each classifier correctly identified human and individual animal sources in approximately 90% of the fecal and environmental samples tested. Misclassifications resulted mostly from false-positive identification of cat and dog fecal signatures in host animals not used to build the classifiers, suggesting characterization of additional animals would improve accuracy. Random forest predictions were highly reproducible, reflecting the consistency of the bacterial signatures within each of the animal and sewage sources. Using in silico generated samples, we could detect fecal bacterial signatures when the source dataset accounted for as little as ~ 0.5% of the assemblage, with ~ 0.04% of the sequences matching the classifiers. Finally, we developed a proxy to estimate proportions among sources, which allowed us to determine which sources contribute the most to observed fecal pollution.
conclusionRandom forest classification with 16S rRNA gene amplicons offers a rapid, sensitive, and accurate solution for identifying host microbial signatures to detect human and animal fecal contamination in environmental samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.