ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023
The impact of transitive annotation on the training of taxonomic classifiers.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological databases in the age of generative artificial intelligence.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Database size positively correlates with the loss of species-level taxonomic resolution for the 16S rRNA and other prokaryotic marker genes.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Introduction: A common task in the analysis of microbial communities involves assigning taxonomic labels to the sequences derived from organisms found in the communities. Frequently, such labels are assigned using machine learning algorithms that are trained to recognize individual taxonomic groups based on training data sets that comprise sequences with known taxonomic labels. Ideally, the training data should rely on labels that are experimentally verified-formal taxonomic labels require knowledge of physical and biochemical properties of organisms that cannot be directly inferred from sequence alone. However, the labels associated with sequences in biological databases are most commonly computational predictions which themselves may rely on computationally-generated data-a process commonly referred to as "transitive annotation." Methods: In this manuscript we explore the implications of training a machine learning classifier (the Ribosomal Database Project's Bayesian classifier in our case) on data that itself has been computationally generated. We generate new training examples based on 16S rRNA data from a metagenomic experiment, and evaluate the extent to which the taxonomic labels predicted by the classifier change after re-training. Results: We demonstrate that even a few computationally-generated training data points can significantly skew the output of the classifier to the point where entire regions of the taxonomic space can be disturbed. Discussion and conclusions: We conclude with a discussion of key factors that affect the resilience of classifiers to transitively-annotated training data, and propose best practices to avoid the artifacts described in our paper.
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.