ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
A benchmark analysis of feature selection and machine learning methods for environmental metabarcoding datasets.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. 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.
- Predicting antifouling paint particle contamination based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing data using random forest-based machine learning.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- A New Unsupervised Machine Learning Method for Metabarcoding Analysis Based on Selected Mock Community Data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-Generation Sequencing methods like DNA metabarcoding enable the generation of large community composition datasets and have grown instrumental in many branches of ecology in recent years. However, the sparsity, compositionality, and high dimensionality of metabarcoding datasets pose challenges in data analysis. In theory, feature selection methods improve the analyzability of eDNA metabarcoding datasets by identifying a subset of informative taxa that are relevant for a certain task and discarding those that are redundant or irrelevant. However, general guidelines on selecting a feature selection method for application to a given setting are lacking. Here, we report a comparison of feature selection methods in a supervised machine learning setup across 13 environmental metabarcoding datasets with differing characteristics. We evaluate workflows that consist of data preprocessing, feature selection and a machine learning model by their ability to capture the ecological relationship between the microbial community composition and environmental parameters. Our results demonstrate that, while the optimal feature selection approach depends on dataset characteristics, feature selection is more likely to impair model performance than to improve it for tree ensemble models like Random Forests. Furthermore, our results show that calculating relative counts impairs model performance, which suggests that novel methods to combat the compositionality of metabarcoding data are required.
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.