Back

Interpolation of Microbiome Composition in Longitudinal Datasets

Borenstein, E.; Peleg, O.

2024-04-28 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.04.23.590847 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The human gut microbiome significantly impacts health, prompting a rise in longitudinal studies that capture microbiome samples at multiple time points. Such studies allow researchers to characterize microbiome changes over time, but importantly, also present major analytical challenges due to incomplete or irregular sampling. To address this challenge, longitudinal microbiome studies often employ various interpolation methods, aiming to infer missing microbiome data. However, to date, a comprehensive assessment of such microbiome interpolation techniques, as well as best practice guidelines for interpolating microbiome data, are still lacking. This work aims to fill this gap, rigorously implementing and systematically evaluating a large array of interpolation methods, spanning several different categories, for longitudinal microbiome interpolation. To assess each method and its ability to accurately infer microbiome composition at missing time points, we used three longitudinal microbiome datasets that follow individuals over a long period of time, and a leave-one-out approach. Overall, our analysis demonstrated that the K-nearest neighbors algorithm consistently outperforms other methods in interpolation accuracy, yet, accuracy varied widely across datasets, individuals, and time. Factors such as microbiome stability, sample size, and the time gap between interpolated and adjacent samples significantly influenced accuracy, allowing us to develop a model for predicting the expected interpolation accuracy at a missing time point. Our findings, combined, suggest that accurate interpolation in longitudinal microbiome data is feasible, especially in dense cohorts. Furthermore, using our predictive model, future studies can interpolate data only in time points where the expected interpolation accuracy is high.

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"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.