Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443997›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2024

Proportion-based normalizations outperform compositional data transformations in machine learning applications.

Aaron Yerke, Daisy Fry Brumit, Anthony A Fodor

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Aaron YerkeDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genomics, Bioinformatics Building, UNC Charlotte, The University of North Carolina, Charlotte 9331 Robert D. Snyder Rd, Charlotte, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8297-5818
Daisy Fry BrumitDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genomics, Bioinformatics Building, UNC Charlotte, The University of North Carolina, Charlotte 9331 Robert D. Snyder Rd, Charlotte, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-8926-0369
Anthony A FodorDepartment of Bioinformatics and Genomics, Bioinformatics Building, UNC Charlotte, The University of North Carolina, Charlotte 9331 Robert D. Snyder Rd, Charlotte, USA. afodor@charlotte.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9305-4264

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormalization, as a pre-processing step, can significantly affect the resolution of machine learning analysis for microbiome studies. There are countless options for normalization scheme selection. In this study, we examined compositionally aware algorithms including the additive log ratio (alr), the centered log ratio (clr), and a recent evolution of the isometric log ratio (ilr) in the form of balance trees made with the PhILR R package. We also looked at compositionally naïve transformations such as raw counts tables and several transformations that are based on relative abundance, such as proportions, the Hellinger transformation, and a transformation based on the logarithm of proportions (which we call "lognorm").

resultsIn our evaluation, we used 65 metadata variables culled from four publicly available datasets at the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) level with a random forest machine learning algorithm. We found that different common pre-processing steps in the creation of the balance trees made very little difference in overall performance. Overall, we found that the compositionally aware data transformations such as alr, clr, and ilr (PhILR) performed generally slightly worse or only as well as compositionally naïve transformations. However, relative abundance-based transformations outperformed most other transformations by a small but reliably statistically significant margin.

conclusionsOur results suggest that minimizing the complexity of transformations while correcting for read depth may be a generally preferable strategy in preparing data for machine learning compared to more sophisticated, but more complex, transformations that attempt to better correct for compositionality. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMicrobiotaMachine LearningCompositional dataHigh-throughput nucleotide sequencingMachine learningMetagenomicsNormalizationPhILRRandom forestStatistical data interpretationTransformation

Identifiers

PMID38443997
PMCPMC10913632

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.