Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21629788›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Application of two-part statistics for comparison of sequence variant counts.

Brandie D Wagner, Charles E Robertson, J Kirk Harris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brandie D WagnerDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America. brandie.wagner@ucdenver.edu
Charles E Robertson
J Kirk Harris

Funding

LABORATORY COREU01HL081335 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ABMAN, STEVEN HERBERT · 2005 to 2008
$4.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS 1U01HL081335-01NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL081335
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigation of microbial communities, particularly human associated communities, is significantly enhanced by the vast amounts of sequence data produced by high throughput sequencing technologies. However, these data create high-dimensional complex data sets that consist of a large proportion of zeros, non-negative skewed counts, and frequently, limited number of samples. These features distinguish sequence data from other forms of high-dimensional data, and are not adequately addressed by statistical approaches in common use. Ultimately, medical studies may identify targeted interventions or treatments, but lack of analytic tools for feature selection and identification of taxa responsible for differences between groups, is hindering advancement. The objective of this paper is to examine the application of a two-part statistic to identify taxa that differ between two groups. The advantages of the two-part statistic over common statistical tests applied to sequence count datasets are discussed. Results from the t-test, the Wilcoxon test, and the two-part test are compared using sequence counts from microbial ecology studies in cystic fibrosis and from cenote samples. We show superior performance of the two-part statistic for analysis of sequence data. The improved performance in microbial ecology studies was independent of study type and sequence technology used.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalHumansSequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID21629788
PMCPMC3100341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.