waldronlab / waldronlab/agent-protocols

Protocol: study characteristics table for a set of curated signatures

Open
#5 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

atomic-protocol data-curation good-first-protocol microbiome
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/bugSigSimpleR/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 in waldronlab/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

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. 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

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.