ArticleGigaScience2025
Exploring the role of normalization and feature selection in microbiome disease classification pipelines.
Article in GigaScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning reveals biocontrol agents shaping disease outcome in natural Arabidopsis populations.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Bacterial taxa associated with lung cancer cases in Southeast Asians: a pilot case-control study.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Decoding the reproductive microbiome: enabling clinical and biological insights through machine and deep learning.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- A data-driven universal gut microbiome health assessment: a machine learning framework trained on large metagenomic data.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Exploring the role of normalization and feature selection in microbiome disease classification pipelines.GigaScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisease classification using 16S rRNA microbiome data faces challenges of high dimensionality, compositionality, and sparsity, compounded by the inherent small sample sizes in many studies. Machine learning and feature selection techniques offer potential to identify robust biomarkers and improve classification performance; however, their comparative effectiveness across diverse methods and datasets has been insufficiently explored. This study evaluates multiple feature selection techniques alongside normalization strategies, focusing on their interplay with classifier performance.
resultsOur analyses revealed that centered log-ratio normalization improves the performance of logistic regression and support vector machine models and facilitates feature selection, whereas random forest models yield strong results using relative abundances. Interestingly, presence-absence normalization was able to achieve similar performance compared to abundance-based transformations across classifiers. Among feature selection methods, minimum redundancy maximum relevancy (mRMR) surpassed most methods in identifying compact feature sets and demonstrated performance comparable to least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), which obtained top results requiring lower computation times. Autoencoders needed larger latent spaces to perform well and lacked interpretability, Mutual Information suffered from redundancy, and ReliefF struggled with data sparsity.
conclusionsOverall, feature selection pipelines improved model focus and robustness via a massive reduction of the feature space. mRMR and LASSO emerged as the most effective methods across datasets.
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.