ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2020
Systematic Comparisons for Composition Profiles, Taxonomic Levels, and Machine Learning Methods for Microbiome-Based Disease Prediction.
Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hierarchical Multi-Omics Trajectory Prediction for fecal microbiota transplantation: a novel machine learning framework for small-sample longitudinal multi-omics integration.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Techniques for learning and transferring knowledge for microbiome-based classification and prediction: review and assessment.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Nine (not so simple) steps: a practical guide to using machine learning in microbial ecology.mBio · 2024Review
- Rumen Microbiota Predicts Feed Efficiency of Primiparous Nordic Red Dairy Cows.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Conditional Forest Models Built Using Metagenomic Data Accurately PredictedMicrobiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Leveraging Scheme for Cross-Study Microbiome Machine Learning Prediction and Feature Evaluations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Whole-genome sequencing and gene sharing network analysis powered by machine learning identifies antibiotic resistance sharing between animals, humans and environment in livestock farming.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Improve the Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis Using Gut Microbiome Data.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Benchmark of Data Processing Methods and Machine Learning Models for Gut Microbiome-Based Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Towards multi-label classification: Next step of machine learning for microbiome research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbiome composition profiles generated from 16S rRNA sequencing have been extensively studied for their usefulness in phenotype trait prediction, including for complex diseases such as diabetes and obesity. These microbiome compositions have typically been quantified in the form of Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) count matrices. However, alternate approaches such as Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASV) have been used, as well as the direct use of k-mer sequence counts. The overall effect of these different types of predictors when used in concert with various machine learning methods has been difficult to assess, due to varied combinations described in the literature. Here we provide an in-depth investigation of more than 1,000 combinations of these three clustering/counting methods, in combination with varied choices for normalization and filtering, grouping at various taxonomic levels, and the use of more than ten commonly used machine learning methods for phenotype prediction. The use of short k-mers, which have computational advantages and conceptual simplicity, is shown to be effective as a source for microbiome-based prediction. Among machine-learning approaches, tree-based methods show consistent, though modest, advantages in prediction accuracy. We describe the various advantages and disadvantages of combinations in analysis approaches, and provide general observations to serve as a useful guide for future trait-prediction explorations using microbiome data.
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.