ArticlemSystems2024
Development and evaluation of statistical and artificial intelligence approaches with microbial shotgun metagenomics data as an untargeted screening tool for use in food production.
Article in mSystems, 2024. 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.
- Artificial intelligence-driven gastrointestinal functional assessment: multimodal imaging, digital biomarkers, and real-time monitoring.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing knowledge of microbial ecology in food products relating to quality and safety and the established usefulness of machine learning algorithms for anomaly detection in multiple scenarios suggests that the application of microbiome data in food production systems for anomaly detection could be a valuable approach to be used in food systems. These methods could be used to identify ingredients that deviate from their typical microbial composition, which could indicate food fraud or safety issues. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using shotgun sequencing data as input into anomaly detection algorithms using fluid milk as a model system. Contrastive principal component analysis (PCA), cluster-based methods, and explainable artificial intelligence (AI) were evaluated for the detection of two anomalous sample classes using longitudinal metagenomic profiling of fluid milk compared to baseline (BL) samples collected under comparable circumstances. Traditional methods (alpha and beta diversity, clustering-based contrastive PCA, multidimensional scaling, and dendrograms) failed to differentiate anomalous sample classes; however, explainable AI was able to classify anomalous vs baseline samples and indicate microbial drivers in association with antibiotic use. We validated the potential for explainable AI to classify different milk sources using larger publicly available fluid milk 16S rDNA sequencing data sets and demonstrated that explainable AI is able to differentiate between milk storage methods, processing stages, and seasons. Our results indicate that the application of artificial intelligence continues to hold promise in the realm of microbiome data analysis and could present further opportunities for downstream analytic automation to aid in food safety and quality. IMPORTANCE: We evaluated the feasibility of using untargeted metagenomic sequencing of raw milk for detecting anomalous food ingredient content with artificial intelligence methods in a study specifically designed to test this hypothesis. We also show through analysis of publicly available fluid milk microbial data that our artificial intelligence approach is able to successfully predict milk in different stages of processing. The approach could potentially be applied in the food industry for safety and quality control.
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.