ArticleBiology direct2020
A machine learning framework to determine geolocations from metagenomic profiling.
Article in Biology direct, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Gut-Liver Axis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): Mechanisms, Microbiome Interactions and Therapeutic Targets.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Pathogenic bacterial profile, associated factors, and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns in intra-city public transport in Harar City, Eastern Ethiopia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Evolution of Diagnostic and Forensic Microbiology in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Cureus · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine and forensic dentistry.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2023Review
- A Comprehensive Insight of Current and Future Challenges in Large-Scale Soil Microbiome Analyses.Microbial ecology · 2023Review
- Advances in machine learning-based bacteria analysis for forensic identification: identity, ethnicity, and site of occurrence.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Trends in forensic microbiology: From classical methods to deep learning.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Advances in microbial metagenomics and artificial intelligence analysis in forensic identification.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Global mapping of cancers: The Cancer Genome Atlas and beyond.Molecular oncology · 2021Review
- Serine and one-carbon metabolisms bring new therapeutic venues in prostate cancer.Discover oncology · 2021Review
- Virulence factor-related gut microbiota genes and immunoglobulin A levels as novel markers for machine learning-based classification of autism spectrum disorder.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies on metagenomic data of environmental microbial samples found that microbial communities seem to be geolocation-specific, and the microbiome abundance profile can be a differentiating feature to identify samples' geolocations. In this paper, we present a machine learning framework to determine the geolocations from metagenomics profiling of microbial samples.
resultsOur method was applied to the multi-source microbiome data from MetaSUB (The Metagenomics and Metadesign of Subways and Urban Biomes) International Consortium for the CAMDA 2019 Metagenomic Forensics Challenge (the Challenge). The goal of the Challenge is to predict the geographical origins of mystery samples by constructing microbiome fingerprints.First, we extracted features from metagenomic abundance profiles. We then randomly split the training data into training and validation sets and trained the prediction models on the training set. Prediction performance was evaluated on the validation set. By using logistic regression with L2 normalization, the prediction accuracy of the model reaches 86%, averaged over 100 random splits of training and validation datasets.The testing data consists of samples from cities that do not occur in the training data. To predict the "mystery" cities that are not sampled before for the testing data, we first defined biological coordinates for sampled cities based on the similarity of microbial samples from them. Then we performed affine transform on the map such that the distance between cities measures their biological difference rather than geographical distance. After that, we derived the probabilities of a given testing sample from unsampled cities based on its predicted probabilities on sampled cities using Kriging interpolation. Results show that this method can successfully assign high probabilities to the true cities-of-origin of testing samples.
conclusionOur framework shows good performance in predicting the geographic origin of metagenomic samples for cities where training data are available. Furthermore, we demonstrate the potential of the proposed method to predict metagenomic samples' geolocations for samples from locations that are not in the training dataset.
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.