bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/631267

Strategies for building computing skills to support microbiome analysis: a five-year perspective from the EDAMAME workshop

Shade, A.·Dunivin, T. K.·Choi, J.·Teal, T.·Howe, A. C.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Here, we report our educational approach and learner evaluations of the first five years of the Explorations in Data Analysis for Metagenomic Advances in Microbial Ecology (EDAMAME) workshop, held annually at Michigan State Universitys Kellogg Biological Station from 2014-2018. We hope this information will be useful for others who want to organize computing-intensive workshops and encourage quantitative skill development among microbiologists.\n\nImportanceHigh-throughput sequencing and related statistical and bioinformatic analyses have become routine in microbiology in the past decade, but there are few formal training opportunities to develop these skills. A week-long workshop can offer sufficient time for novices to become introduced to best computing practices and common workflows in sequence analysis. We report our experiences in executing such a workshop targeted to professional learners (graduate students, post-doctoral scientists, faculty, and research staff).

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shade, A., Dunivin, T. K., Choi, J., Teal, T., Howe, A. C.. 2019-05-09. Strategies for building computing skills to support microbiome analysis: a five-year perspective from the EDAMAME workshop. https://doi.org/10.1101/631267

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2019

To Tweet or Not to Tweet, That is the Question: A Randomized Trial of Twitter Effects on Article Engagement in Medical Education

Many medical education journals use Twitter to garner attention for their articles. The purpose of this study was to test the effects of tweeting on article page views and downloads.\n\nThe authors conducted a randomized trial using Academic Medicine articles published in 2015. Beginning in February through May 2018, one article per day was randomly assigned to a Twitter (case) or control group. Daily, an individual tweet was generated for each article in the Twitter group that included the title, #MedEd, and a link to the article. The link delivered users to the articles landing page, which included immediate access to the HTML full text and a PDF link. The authors extracted HTML page views and PDF downloads from the publisher. To assess differences in page views and downloads between cases and controls, a time-centered approach was used, with outcomes measured at 1, 7, and 30 days.\n\nIn total, 189 articles (94 cases, 95 controls) were analyzed. After days 1 and 7, there were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls on any metric. On day 30, HTML page views exhibited a 63% increase for cases (M=14.72, SD=63.68) when compared to controls (M=9.01, SD=14.34; incident rate ratio=1.63, p=0.01). There were no differences between cases and controls for PDF downloads on day 30.\n\nContrary to the authors hypothesis, only one statistically significant difference in page views between the Twitter and control groups was found. These findings provide preliminary evidence that after 30 days a tweet can have a small positive effect on article page views.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2019

Antibiotics and food in the American press

The emergence of antimicrobial resistant infections from food is well documented in the scientific literature but, in this kind of matter, the public opinion is an important policy driver and is vastly forged by traditional media. Here, we propose a text mining study through about 500 articles from two reference daily U.S. newspapers to assess the media coverage of this issue. Our results indicate that, since the middle of the 80s, the two journals considered here adopted a very different narrative around the issue, echoing civil society concerns in one case and the official discourse in the other.

scientific communication and education↗