bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Gihawi, A.

Publications and source records attributed to Gihawi, A..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Major data analysis errors invalidate cancer microbiome findings

We re-analyzed the data from a recent large-scale study that reported strong correlations between microbial organisms and 33 different cancer types, and that created machine learning predictors with near-perfect accuracy at distinguishing among cancers. We found at least two fundamental flaws in the reported data and in the methods: (1) errors in the genome database and the associated computational methods led to millions of false positive findings of bacterial reads across all samples, largely because most of the sequences identified as bacteria were instead human; and (2) errors in transformation of the raw data created an artificial signature, even for microbes with no reads detected, tagging each tumor type with a distinct signal that the machine learning programs then used to create an apparently accurate classifier. Each of these problems invalidates the results, leading to the conclusion that the microbiome-based classifiers for identifying cancer presented in the study are entirely wrong. These flaws have subsequently affected more than a dozen additional published studies that used the same data and whose results are likely invalid as well.

cancer biology↗

Caution Regarding the Specificities of Pan-Cancer Microbial Structure

The results published in Poore and Kopylova et al. 2020[1] revealed the possibility of being able to almost perfectly differentiate between types of tumour based on their microbial composition using machine learning models. Whilst we believe that there is the potential for microbial composition to be used in this manner, we have concerns with the manuscript that make us question the certainty of the conclusions drawn. We believe there are issues in the areas of the contribution of contamination, handling of batch effects, false positive classifications and limitations in the machine learning approaches used. This makes it difficult to identify whether the authors have identified true biological signal and how robust these models would be in use as clinical biomarkers. We commend Poore and Kopylova et al. on their approach to open data and reproducibility that has enabled this analysis. We hope that this discourse assists the future development of machine learning models and hypothesis generation in microbiome research.

bioinformatics↗