Back

Current challenges in microbiome metadata collection

Rosenfeld, G.; Angelova, A.; Shin, C.; Quinones, M.; Hurt, D.

2021-05-05 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2021.05.05.442781 bioRxiv
Show abstract

While the biomedical community has embraced data sharing (e.g. results, raw data) and supported establishment of large research consortia (e.g. the Human Microbiome Project) aimed to standardize the quality of important sets of microbiome sequencing data, the reusability of most microbiome data is still limited by the quality of its associated metadata. To ensure that microbiome data is indeed FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), it is necessary to consider tools and approaches that make it easier to provide high-quality metadata that is fit for purpose moving forward. Such tools and approaches could be informed by current efforts to harmonize and improve the quality of extant microbiome metadata.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
11.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Wellcome Open Research
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
Similar papers in this journal
5
mSystems
● 394 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Database
◐ 61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
8
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.2%
11
Scientific Data
○ 209 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
12
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.3%
13
Ecology and Evolution
○ 267 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
14
BMC Research Notes
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
15
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
16
Nature Biotechnology
○ 172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
17
mBio
● 833 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.7%
18
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
19
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.7%
20
Frontiers in Microbiology
○ 427 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
21
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
22
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
23
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
24
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.