Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38426064›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024

Explainable artificial intelligence for microbiome data analysis in colorectal cancer biomarker identification.

Pierfrancesco Novielli, Donato Romano, Michele Magarelli, Pierpaolo Di Bitonto, Domenico Diacono, Annalisa Chiatante, Giuseppe Lopalco, Daniele Sabella, Vincenzo Venerito, Pasquale Filannino and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Gut microbial alterations and functional shifts in patients with hypertriglyceridemia: insights from a northwestern Chinese metagenomic study.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pierfrancesco NovielliDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Donato RomanoDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Michele MagarelliDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Pierpaolo Di BitontoDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Domenico DiaconoIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy.
Annalisa ChiatanteDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Giuseppe LopalcoDipartimento di Medicina di Precisione e Rigenerativa e Area Jonica, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Daniele SabellaDipartimento di Medicina di Precisione e Rigenerativa e Area Jonica, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Vincenzo VeneritoDipartimento di Medicina di Precisione e Rigenerativa e Area Jonica, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Pasquale FilanninoDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Roberto BellottiIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy.
Maria De AngelisDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Florenzo IannoneDipartimento di Medicina di Precisione e Rigenerativa e Area Jonica, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Sabina TangaroDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
University of Bari Aldo Moro · ITIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a type of tumor caused by the uncontrolled growth of cells in the mucosa lining the last part of the intestine. Emerging evidence underscores an association between CRC and gut microbiome dysbiosis. The high mortality rate of this cancer has made it necessary to develop new early diagnostic methods. Machine learning (ML) techniques can represent a solution to evaluate the interaction between intestinal microbiota and host physiology. Through explained artificial intelligence (XAI) it is possible to evaluate the individual contributions of microbial taxonomic markers for each subject. Our work also implements the Shapley Method Additive Explanations (SHAP) algorithm to identify for each subject which parameters are important in the context of CRC. Results: The proposed study aimed to implement an explainable artificial intelligence framework using both gut microbiota data and demographic information from subjects to classify a cohort of control subjects from those with CRC. Our analysis revealed an association between gut microbiota and this disease. We compared three machine learning algorithms, and the Random Forest (RF) algorithm emerged as the best classifier, with a precision of 0.729 ± 0.038 and an area under the Precision-Recall curve of 0.668 ± 0.016. Additionally, SHAP analysis highlighted the most crucial variables in the model's decision-making, facilitating the identification of specific bacteria linked to CRC. Our results confirmed the role of certain bacteria, such as Discussion: These findings emphasizes the potential of leveraging gut microbiota data within an explainable AI framework for CRC classification. The significant association observed aligns with existing knowledge. The precision exhibited by the RF algorithm reinforces its suitability for such classification tasks. The SHAP analysis not only enhanced interpretability but identified specific bacteria crucial in CRC determination. This approach opens avenues for targeted interventions based on microbial signatures. Further exploration is warranted to deepen our understanding of the intricate interplay between microbiota and health, providing insights for refined diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Indexed as

biomarker identificationcolorectal cancerexplainable artificial intelligencemachine learningmicrobiomemicrobiotaprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID38426064
PMCPMC10901987
OpenAlexW4391841701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.