ReviewFunctional & integrative genomics2025
Genome-resolved metagenomics from short-read sequencing data in the era of artificial intelligence.
Review in Functional & integrative genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- scHGNN: A single-cell gene regulatory network inference method based on heuristic graph neural networks.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Article
- High-qualityMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- The evolution of diagnostic microbiology: integrating culture-based methods and genomic advances.PeerJ · 2026Review
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing: new horizons in microbiology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- The Role of the Gut Microbiome in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Viral Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for One Health Discovery and Surveillance of (Re)Emerging Viruses: A Deep Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-resolved metagenomics is a computational method that enables researchers to reconstruct microbial genomes from a given sample directly. This process involves three major steps, i.e. (i) preprocessing of the reads (ii) metagenome assembly, and (iii) genome binning, with (iv) taxonomic classification, and (v) functional annotation as additional steps. Despite the availability of multiple bioinformatics approaches, metagenomic data analysis encounters various challenges due to high dimensionality, data sparseness, and complexity. Meanwhile, integrating artificial intelligence (AI) at different stages of data analysis has transformed genome-resolved metagenomics. Though the application of machine learning and deep learning in metagenomic annotation started earlier, the emergence of better sequencing technologies, improved throughput, and reduced processing time have rendered the initial models less efficient. Consequently, the number of AI-based metagenomics tools is continuously increasing. The recent AI-based tools demonstrate superior performance in handling complex and multi-dimensional metagenomics data, offering improved accuracy, scalability, and efficiency compared to traditional models. In this paper, we reviewed recent AI-based tools specifically developed for short-read metagenomic data, and their underlying models for genome-resolved metagenomics. It also discusses the performance of these tools and overviews their usability in metagenomics research. We believe this study will provide researchers with insights into the strengths and limitations of current AI-based approaches, serving as a valuable resource for selecting appropriate tools and guiding future advancements in genome-resolved metagenomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40493087What 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.