Bishop, C. M. Pattern recognition and machine learning (Springer, 2006).
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction 2nd edn (Springer Science & Business Media, 2009).
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).
Murphy, K. P. Probabilistic Machine Learning: Advanced Topics (MIT Press, 2022).
Goodswen, S. J. et al. Machine learning and applications in microbiology. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 45, fuab015 (2021).
Google Scholar
Topçuoğlu, B. D., Lesniak, N. A., Ruffin, M. T., 4th, Wiens, J. & Schloss, P. D. A framework for effective application of machine learning to microbiome-based classification problems. mBio 11, e00434-20 (2020). This work focuses on applying machine learning to microbiome data for disease prediction, highlighting the important trade-off between model complexity and interpretability, and emphasizing the need for rigorous methodology towards more reproducible machine learning usage in microbiome research.
Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).
Google Scholar
Parks, D. H., MacDonald, N. J. & Beiko, R. G. Classifying short genomic fragments from novel lineages using composition and homology. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 328 (2011).
Google Scholar
Rosen, G. L., Reichenberger, E. R. & Rosenfeld, A. M. NBC: the Naive Bayes Classification tool webserver for taxonomic classification of metagenomic reads. Bioinformatics 27, 127–129 (2011).
Google Scholar
McHardy, A. C., Martín, H. G., Tsirigos, A., Hugenholtz, P. & Rigoutsos, I. Accurate phylogenetic classification of variable-length DNA fragments. Nat. Methods 4, 63–72 (2007).
Google Scholar
Patil, K. R., Roune, L. & McHardy, A. C. The PhyloPythiaS web server for taxonomic assignment of metagenome sequences. PLoS ONE 7, e38581 (2012).
Google Scholar
Gregor, I., Dröge, J., Schirmer, M., Quince, C. & McHardy, A. C. PhyloPythiaS+: a self-training method for the rapid reconstruction of low-ranking taxonomic bins from metagenomes. PeerJ 4, e1603 (2016).
Google Scholar
Vervier, K., Mahé, P., Tournoud, M., Veyrieras, J.-B. & Vert, J.-P. Large-scale machine learning for metagenomics sequence classification. Bioinformatics 32, 1023–1032 (2016). This work introduces a machine learning-based approach for tackling the taxonomic binning step, using a supervised approach that balances accuracy and speed and outperforms alignment-based methods.
Google Scholar
Diaz, N. N., Krause, L., Goesmann, A., Niehaus, K. & Nattkemper, T. W. TACOA — taxonomic classification of environmental genomic fragments using a kernelized nearest neighbor approach. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 56 (2009).
Google Scholar
Sczyrba, A. et al. Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation — a benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat. Methods 14, 1063–1071 (2017).
Google Scholar
Davis, J. J. et al. Antimicrobial resistance prediction in PATRIC and RAST. Sci. Rep. 6, 27930 (2016).
Google Scholar
Arango-Argoty, G. et al. DeepARG: a deep learning approach for predicting antibiotic resistance genes from metagenomic data. Microbiome 6, 23 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kavvas, E. S. et al. Machine learning and structural analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis pan-genome identifies genetic signatures of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Commun. 9, 4306 (2018).
Google Scholar
Moradigaravand, D. et al. Prediction of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli from large-scale pan-genome data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006258 (2018).
Google Scholar
Rahman, S. F., Olm, M. R., Morowitz, M. J. & Banfield, J. F. Machine learning leveraging genomes from metagenomes identifies influential antibiotic resistance genes in the infant gut microbiome. mSystems 3, e00123–e00217 (2018).
Google Scholar
Freund, Y. & Schapire, R. E. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 119–139 (1997).
Google Scholar
Baldi, P. Deep Learning in biomedical data science. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 1, 181–205 (2018).
Hannigan, G. D. et al. A deep learning genome-mining strategy for biosynthetic gene cluster prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, e110 (2019).
Google Scholar
Weimann, A. et al. From genomes to phenotypes: Traitar, the microbial trait analyzer. mSystems 1, e00101–e00116 (2016). This work uses machine learning to predict 67 microbial phenotypic traits from genome sequences, facilitating the analysis of large-scale microbial genomic data.
Google Scholar
Thomas, A. M. et al. Metagenomic analysis of colorectal cancer datasets identifies cross-cohort microbial diagnostic signatures and a link with choline degradation. Nat. Med. 25, 667–678 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wirbel, J. et al. Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 25, 679–689 (2019).
Google Scholar
Poore, G. D. et al. Microbiome analyses of blood and tissues suggest cancer diagnostic approach. Nature 579, 567–574 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pasolli, E., Truong, D. T., Malik, F., Waldron, L. & Segata, N. Machine learning meta-analysis of large metagenomic datasets: tools and biological insights. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004977 (2016).
Google Scholar
Qin, J. et al. A metagenome-wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature 490, 55–60 (2012).
Google Scholar
Ghensi, P. et al. Strong oral plaque microbiome signatures for dental implant diseases identified by strain-resolution metagenomics. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 6, 47 (2020).
Google Scholar
Salosensaari, A. et al. Taxonomic signatures of cause-specific mortality risk in human gut microbiome. Nat. Commun. 12, 2671 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kartal, E. et al. A faecal microbiota signature with high specificity for pancreatic cancer. Gut 71, 1359–1372 (2022).
Google Scholar
Asnicar, F. et al. Microbiome connections with host metabolism and habitual diet from 1,098 deeply phenotyped individuals. Nat. Med. 21, 321–332 (2021).
Lee, K. A. et al. Cross-cohort gut microbiome associations with immune checkpoint inhibitor response in advanced melanoma. Nat. Med. 28, 535–544 (2022).
Google Scholar
McCulloch, J. A. et al. Intestinal microbiota signatures of clinical response and immune-related adverse events in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1. Nat. Med. 28, 545–556 (2022).
Google Scholar
Routy, B. et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science 359, 91–97 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gopalakrishnan, V. et al. Gut microbiome modulates response to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients. Science 359, 97–103 (2018).
Google Scholar
Derosa, L. et al. Intestinal Akkermansia muciniphila predicts overall survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibodies: results a phase II study. J. Clin. Orthod. 39, 9019–9019 (2021).
Davar, D. et al. Fecal microbiota transplant overcomes resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients. Science 371, 595–602 (2021).
Google Scholar
Baruch, E. N. et al. Fecal microbiota transplant promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients. Science 371, 602–609 (2021).
Google Scholar
Palma, S. I. C. J. et al. Machine learning for the meta-analyses of microbial pathogens’ volatile signatures. Sci. Rep. 8, 3360 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ianiro, G. et al. Variability of strain engraftment and predictability of microbiome composition after fecal microbiota transplantation across different diseases. Nat. Med. 28, 1913–1923 (2022). This study uses machine learning to develop predictive models for selecting optimal donors for faecal microbiota transplantation, making personalized microbiome-targeted treatments more effective.
Google Scholar
Smillie, C. S. et al. Strain tracking reveals the determinants of bacterial engraftment in the human gut following fecal microbiota transplantation. Cell Host Microbe 23, 229–240.e5 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. S. B. et al. Drivers and determinants of strain dynamics following fecal microbiota transplantation. Nat. Med. 28, 1902–1912 (2022).
Google Scholar
Arumugam, M. et al. Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 473, 174–180 (2011).
Google Scholar
Ravel, J. et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4680–4687 (2011).
Google Scholar
Koren, O. et al. A guide to enterotypes across the human body: meta-analysis of microbial community structures in human microbiome datasets. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002863 (2013).
Google Scholar
Knights, D. et al. Rethinking ‘enterotypes’. Cell Host Microbe 16, 433–437 (2014).
Google Scholar
Costea, P. I. et al. Enterotypes in the landscape of gut microbial community composition. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 8–16 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gao, L. L., Bien, J. & Witten, D. Selective inference for hierarchical clustering. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2022.2116331 (2022).
Karcher, N. et al. Analysis of 1321 Eubacterium rectale genomes from metagenomes uncovers complex phylogeographic population structure and subspecies functional adaptations. Genome Biol. 21, 138 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hamady, M. & Knight, R. Microbial community profiling for human microbiome projects: tools, techniques, and challenges. Genome Res 19, 1141–1152 (2009).
Google Scholar
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).
Google Scholar
Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584 (2016).
Google Scholar
Pasolli, E. et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell 176, 1–14 (2019).
Konstantinidis, K. T. & Tiedje, J. M. Genomic insights that advance the species definition for prokaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2567–2572 (2005).
Google Scholar
Nguyen, N.-P., Warnow, T., Pop, M. & White, B. A perspective on 16S rRNA operational taxonomic unit clustering using sequence similarity. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2, 16004 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jain, C., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Phillippy, A. M., Konstantinidis, K. T. & Aluru, S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat. Commun. 9, 5114 (2018).
Google Scholar
Murray, C. S., Gao, Y. & Wu, M. Re-evaluating the evidence for a universal genetic boundary among microbial species. Nat. Commun. 12, 4059 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rodriguez-R, L. M., Jain, C., Conrad, R. E., Aluru, S. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Reply to: ‘Re-evaluating the evidence for a universal genetic boundary among microbial species’. Nat. Commun. 12, 4060 (2021).
Google Scholar
Li, W. & Godzik, A. cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22, 1658–1659 (2006).
Google Scholar
Bahram, M. et al. Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome. Nature 560, 233–237 (2018).
Google Scholar
Spang, A. et al. Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature 521, 173–179 (2015).
Google Scholar
Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486, 207–214 (2012).
Google Scholar
Xiao, L. et al. A catalog of the mouse gut metagenome. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1103–1108 (2015).
Google Scholar
Qin, J. et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464, 59–65 (2010).
Google Scholar
Chen, C. et al. Expanded catalog of microbial genes and metagenome-assembled genomes from the pig gut microbiome. Nat. Commun. 12, 1106 (2021).
Google Scholar
Steinegger, M. & Söding, J. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1026–1028 (2017).
Google Scholar
Vanni, C. et al. Unifying the known and unknown microbial coding sequence space. eLife 11, e67667 (2022).
Google Scholar
Apweiler, R. et al. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D115–D119 (2004).
Google Scholar
Almeida, A. et al. A unified catalog of 204,938 reference genomes from the human gut microbiome. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 105–114 (2021).
Google Scholar
Abdi, H. & Williams, L. J. Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2, 433–459 (2010).
Davis, T. D., Gerry, C. J. & Tan, D. S. General platform for systematic quantitative evaluation of small-molecule permeability in bacteria. ACS Chem. Biol. 9, 2535–2544 (2014).
Google Scholar
Suchodolski, J. S. et al. The fecal microbiome in dogs with acute diarrhea and idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS ONE 7, e51907 (2012).
Google Scholar
Mishiro, T. et al. Oral microbiome alterations of healthy volunteers with proton pump inhibitor. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 33, 1059–1066 (2018).
Google Scholar
Vázquez-Baeza, Y., Pirrung, M., Gonzalez, A. & Knight, R. EMPeror: a tool for visualizing high-throughput microbial community data. Gigascience 2, 16 (2013).
Google Scholar
van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9, 2579–2605 (2008).
Becht, E. et al. Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using UMAP. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 38–44 (2018).
Howick, V. M. et al. The Malaria Cell Atlas: single parasite transcriptomes across the complete Plasmodium life cycle. Science 365, eaaw2619 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kuchina, A. et al. Microbial single-cell RNA sequencing by split-pool barcoding. Science 371, eaba5257 (2021).
Google Scholar
Yatsunenko, T. et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486, 222–227 (2012).
Google Scholar
Rousk, J. et al. Soil bacterial and fungal communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J. 4, 1340–1351 (2010).
Google Scholar
Aagaard, K. et al. A metagenomic approach to characterization of the vaginal microbiome signature in pregnancy. PLoS ONE 7, e36466 (2012).
Google Scholar
Blattman, S. B., Jiang, W., Oikonomou, P. & Tavazoie, S. Prokaryotic single-cell RNA sequencing by in situ combinatorial indexing. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 1192–1201 (2020).
Google Scholar
Jeckel, H. & Drescher, K. Advances and opportunities in image analysis of bacterial cells and communities. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 45, fuaa062 (2020).
Google Scholar
Geier, B. et al. Spatial metabolomics of in situ host–microbe interactions at the micrometre scale. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 498–510 (2020).
Google Scholar
Le Chatelier, E. et al. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature 500, 541–546 (2013).
Google Scholar
Li, H. Microbiome, metagenomics, and high-dimensional compositional data analysis. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 2, 73–94 (2015).
Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. Microbiome datasets are compositional: and this is not optional. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2224 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bermingham, M. L. et al. Application of high-dimensional feature selection: evaluation for genomic prediction in man. Sci. Rep. 5, 10312 (2015).
Google Scholar
Zeller, G. et al. Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol. Syst. Biol. 10, 766 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zackular, J. P., Rogers, M. A. M., Ruffin, M. T. 4th & Schloss, P. D. The human gut microbiome as a screening tool for colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev. Res. 7, 1112–1121 (2014).
Google Scholar
Wong, S. H. et al. Quantitation of faecal Fusobacterium improves faecal immunochemical test in detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. Gut 66, 1441–1448 (2017).
Google Scholar
Xie, Y.-H. et al. Fecal Clostridium symbiosum for noninvasive detection of early and advanced colorectal cancer: test and validation studies. EBioMedicine 25, 32–40 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kostic, A. D. et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 14, 207–215 (2013).
Google Scholar
Rubinstein, M. R. et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/β-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe 14, 195–206 (2013).
Google Scholar
Bourgon, R., Gentleman, R. & Huber, W. Independent filtering increases detection power for high-throughput experiments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9546–9551 (2010).
Google Scholar
Hua, J., Tembe, W. D. & Dougherty, E. R. Performance of feature-selection methods in the classification of high-dimension data. Pattern Recognit. 42, 409–424 (2009).
Google Scholar
Fan, J. & Lv, J. Sure independence screening for ultrahigh dimensional feature space. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 70, 849–911 (2008).
Google Scholar
Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S. & Vapnik, V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389–422 (2002).
Radovic, M., Ghalwash, M., Filipovic, N. & Obradovic, Z. Minimum redundancy maximum relevance feature selection approach for temporal gene expression data. BMC Bioinformatics 18, 9 (2017).
Google Scholar
Forslund, K. et al. Disentangling type 2 diabetes and metformin treatment signatures in the human gut microbiota. Nature 528, 262–266 (2015). This study underlines the importance of considering the influence of medication in machine learning-based microbiome analysis. In particular, it shows the effects of metformin on the gut microbiome of individuals with type 2 diabetes, highlighting the need to distinguish microbial signatures of diseases from medication.
Google Scholar
Hacılar, H., Nalbantoğlu, O. U. & Bakir-Güngör, B. in 2018 3rd Int. Conf. Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK) 434–438 (IEEE, 2018).
Flemer, B. et al. The oral microbiota in colorectal cancer is distinctive and predictive. Gut 67, 1454–1463 (2018).
Google Scholar
Yachida, S. et al. Metagenomic and metabolomic analyses reveal distinct stage-specific phenotypes of the gut microbiota in colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 25, 968–976 (2019).
Google Scholar
Maimon, O. & Rokach, L. (eds) Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook (Springer, 2010).
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Model selection and overfitting. Nat. Methods 13, 703–704 (2016). This work highlights the importance of accurately assessing model performance to not fall into overfitting problems. Approaches that consider validation sets, test sets and cross-validation are extremely important especially when dealing with limited data.
Google Scholar
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. Classification evaluation. Nat. Methods 13, 603–604 (2016). This work highlights the importance of selecting the appropriate evaluation metrics when assessing the performances of classification models in the context of medical diagnosis. It also emphasizes the impact of class imbalance and the use of specific metrics in cases of imbalanced data sets.
Google Scholar
Ange, B. A., Symons, J. M., Schwab, M., Howell, E. & Geyh, A. Generalizability in epidemiology: an investigation within the context of heart failure studies. Ann. Epidemiol. 14, 600–601 (2004).
He, Y. et al. Regional variation limits applications of healthy gut microbiome reference ranges and disease models. Nat. Med. 24, 1532–1535 (2018).
Google Scholar
Renson, A. et al. Sociodemographic variation in the oral microbiome. Ann. Epidemiol. 35, 73–80.e2 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sinha, R. et al. Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1077–1086 (2017).
Google Scholar
Soneson, C., Gerster, S. & Delorenzi, M. Batch effect confounding leads to strong bias in performance estimates obtained by cross-validation. PLoS ONE 9, e100335 (2014).
Google Scholar
Riester, M. et al. Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju048 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Bernau, C., Parmigiani, G. & Waldron, L. The impact of different sources of heterogeneity on loss of accuracy from genomic prediction models. Biostatistics 21, 253–268 (2018). This work examines the impact of different types of heterogeneity on the validation accuracy of omics-based prediction models across data sets and provides insights into the challenges of validating prediction models in the presence of study heterogeneity.
Google Scholar
Bernau, C. et al. Cross-study validation for the assessment of prediction algorithms. Bioinformatics 30, i105–i112 (2014).
Google Scholar
Moreno-Indias, I. et al. Statistical and machine learning techniques in human microbiome studies: contemporary challenges and solutions. Front. Microbiol. 12, 635781 (2021). This work highlights the growing importance of statistical and machine learning techniques in human microbiome studies and challenges posed by the heterogeneity of microbiome data, and emphasizes the potential of machine learning in disease diagnosis, biomarker identification and prediction while addressing issues such as data standardization, overfitting and model interpretability.
Google Scholar
Tonkovic, P. et al. Literature on applied machine learning in metagenomic classification: a scoping review. Biology 9, 453 (2020).
Google Scholar
Feng, Q. et al. Gut microbiome development along the colorectal adenoma–carcinoma sequence. Nat. Commun. 6, 6528 (2015).
Google Scholar
Pasolli, E. et al. Accessible, curated metagenomic data through ExperimentHub. Nat. Methods 14, 1023 (2017).
Google Scholar
Méheust, R., Burstein, D., Castelle, C. J. & Banfield, J. F. The distinction of CPR bacteria from other bacteria based on protein family content. Nat. Commun. 10, 4173 (2019).
Google Scholar
Brown, C. T. et al. Unusual biology across a group comprising more than 15% of domain bacteria. Nature 523, 208–211 (2015).
Google Scholar
Anantharaman, K. et al. Thousands of microbial genomes shed light on interconnected biogeochemical processes in an aquifer system. Nat. Commun. 7, 13219 (2016).
Google Scholar
Castelle, C. J. et al. Genomic expansion of domain archaea highlights roles for organisms from new phyla in anaerobic carbon cycling. Curr. Biol. 25, 690–701 (2015).
Google Scholar
Probst, A. J. et al. Genomic resolution of a cold subsurface aquifer community provides metabolic insights for novel microbes adapted to high CO2 concentrations. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 459–474 (2017).
Google Scholar
Yu, J. et al. Metagenomic analysis of faecal microbiome as a tool towards targeted non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Gut 66, 70–78 (2017).
Google Scholar
Eid, F.-E., ElHefnawi, M. & Heath, L. S. DeNovo: virus–host sequence-based protein–protein interaction prediction. Bioinformatics 32, 1144–1150 (2015).
Google Scholar
Calderone, A., Licata, L. & Cesareni, G. VirusMentha: a new resource for virus–host protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D588–D592 (2015).
Google Scholar
Weis, C. et al. Direct antimicrobial resistance prediction from clinical MALDI-TOF mass spectra using machine learning. Nat. Med. 28, 164–174 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wirbel, J. et al. Microbiome meta-analysis and cross-disease comparison enabled by the SIAMCAT machine learning toolbox. Genome Biol. 22, 93 (2021).
Google Scholar
Vujkovic-Cvijin, I. et al. Host variables confound gut microbiota studies of human disease. Nature 587, 448–454 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hernán, M. A. The C-word: scientific euphemisms do not improve causal inference from observational data. Am. J. Public. Health 108, 616–619 (2018). This work emphasizes the importance of using the term ‘causal’, in particular when analysing data from observational studies, and highlights the need to distinguish between association and causation and address confounding factors properly.
Google Scholar
