ArticleBiology direct2020
Systematic evaluation of supervised machine learning for sample origin prediction using metagenomic sequencing data.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence: A Promising Tool in Exploring the Phytomicrobiome in Managing Disease and Promoting Plant Health.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clinical Metagenomics Is Increasingly Accurate and Affordable to Detect Enteric Bacterial Pathogens in Stool.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Interfacing Machine Learning and Microbial Omics: A Promising Means to Address Environmental Challenges.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
- The expression of ELOVL4, repressed by MYCN, defines neuroblastoma patients with good outcome.Oncogene · 2021Article
- NUAK2 and RCan2 participate in the p53 mutant pro-tumorigenic network.Biology direct · 2021Article
- Gut Microbiome and Metabolites in Patients with NAFLD and after Bariatric Surgery: A Comprehensive Review.Metabolites · 2021Review
- Involvement of transcribed lncRNA uc.291 and SWI/SNF complex in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.Discover oncology · 2021Article
- Origin Sample Prediction and Spatial Modeling of Antimicrobial Resistance in Metagenomic Sequencing Data.Frontiers in genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advent of metagenomic sequencing provides microbial abundance patterns that can be leveraged for sample origin prediction. Supervised machine learning classification approaches have been reported to predict sample origin accurately when the origin has been previously sampled. Using metagenomic datasets provided by the 2019 CAMDA challenge, we evaluated the influence of variable technical, analytical and machine learning approaches for result interpretation and novel source prediction.
resultsComparison between 16S rRNA amplicon and shotgun sequencing approaches as well as metagenomic analytical tools showed differences in normalized microbial abundance, especially for organisms present at low abundance. Shotgun sequence data analyzed using Kraken2 and Bracken, for taxonomic annotation, had higher detection sensitivity. As classification models are limited to labeling pre-trained origins, we took an alternative approach using Lasso-regularized multivariate regression to predict geographic coordinates for comparison. In both models, the prediction errors were much higher in Leave-1-city-out than in 10-fold cross validation, of which the former realistically forecasted the increased difficulty in accurately predicting samples from new origins. This challenge was further confirmed when applying the model to a set of samples obtained from new origins. Overall, the prediction performance of the regression and classification models, as measured by mean squared error, were comparable on mystery samples. Due to higher prediction error rates for samples from new origins, we provided an additional strategy based on prediction ambiguity to infer whether a sample is from a new origin. Lastly, we report increased prediction error when data from different sequencing protocols were included as training data.
conclusionsHerein, we highlight the capacity of predicting sample origin accurately with pre-trained origins and the challenge of predicting new origins through both regression and classification models. Overall, this work provides a summary of the impact of sequencing technique, protocol, taxonomic analytical approaches, and machine learning approaches on the use of metagenomics for prediction of sample origin.
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.