waldronlab / waldronlab/agent-protocols
Protocol: study characteristics table for a set of curated signatures
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 1
- Avg merge
- 1h 2m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 9
Description
Tier: A (fieldwork / first protocol) · Type: atomic · Category: Descriptive Statistics
What
Given a filtered BugSigDB subset, produce the "table of studies" that opens essentially every fieldwork and capstone analysis: one row per study, with study identifier, condition, body site, sequencing type, group sizes, number of signatures, and DOI.
Why it matters
It is the first table in a paper and the first thing a reviewer checks. It is also where the study-identifier convention gets decided — bugSigSimple builds a curatedMetagenomicData-style ID (ZellerG_2014, with .1/.2 disambiguation), which is what makes BugSigDB and cMD analyses joinable later. That convention deserves to be written down as a protocol step rather than buried in an internal helper.
Source material
waldronlab/bugSigSimple—R/describe_curation.R(createStudyTable),R/simple.R(.make_unique_study_ID, author: Giacomo Antonello)- Vignettes:
capstoneanalysis_clare.rmd("Table of studies"),goldstandard_vignette_peace.Rmd("Study characteristics")
Scope
In: required columns; the unique-study-identifier construction rule including duplicate suffixing; DOI normalization; how to collapse multiple experiments per study.
Out: taxon-level summaries (see the frequency-table protocol); formatting/typesetting.
Frontmatter starting point
type: "atomic"
category: "Descriptive Statistics"
citation: ~ # No originating method to cite — this is a reporting convention, not a method.
# `citation` is optional in the standard; leave it empty rather than citing an
# application paper. Raise it in the standard repo if a reporting protocol needs a
# different provenance field.
protocols_used: [] # consumes the output of the signature-subset protocol
tags: [bugsigdb, study-table, reporting, study-identifier]
Acceptance criteria
- The identifier rule is deterministic and stated in prose
- Says what to do when the first author or year is missing
- Output is a table specification, not a rendered
kable
Cite the method's origin, not its users
PROTOCOL_STANDARD.md is explicit: an atomic protocol carries "strictly 1 citation... corresponding
to the primary literature where the method was originally published." Find the paper that proposed
the method. Do not cite a paper that merely applied it — including the BugSigDB and curatedMetagenomicData
papers, which are the source of the analysis these protocols were extracted from but almost never the
source of the method.
Tracing a method back to its first publication is real work, and it is part of the task, not a
formality. Three things to expect:
- Candidate DOIs in this issue are leads, not answers. Anything marked VERIFY has not been checked.
- Some methods predate modern citation practice or have no single identifiable origin. If that is
genuinely the case, say so in the pull request rather than reaching for a convenient recent paper.
Raise it as an issue inwaldronlab/agent-protocol-standard— the standard may need a way to express
"classical method, no primary source". - If you cannot name one paper that proposed everything the protocol does, it is more than one
protocol. That test has now split four protocols out of this batch: enrichment into three methods,
filtering from transformation, LODO from random forest, and PERMANOVA from ANOSIM.
Where the lab's own paper genuinely did propose the method — the oral-to-gut score, and LODO
cross-validation in Pasolli et al. 2016 — citing it is correct. That is the exception, not the pattern.
Before you start
Read CONTRIBUTING.md and
PROTOCOL_STANDARD.md.
The format is defined in the standard repo, not this one. Protocols are prose, not code: they say what to do
and why, precisely enough that two people — or two agents, in two languages — get the same answer. The existing
independent-filtering-variance
protocol is the model to imitate for tone and level of detail.
Validate locally before opening the PR:
git clone https://github.com/waldronlab/agent-protocol-standard.git
Rscript agent-protocol-standard/scripts/validate-protocol.R protocols
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read CONTRIBUTING.md and PROTOCOL_STANDARD.md, then inspect R/describe_curation.R, R/simple.R, and the cited vignettes for study-table behavior. Document the required columns, identifier and DOI rules, missing-value handling, and experiment collapsing without rendering a table. Validate with the provided Rscript command before opening a pull request.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- r
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 78/100