ArticleBiology direct2017
Consistent metagenomic biomarker detection via robust PCA.
Article in Biology direct, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced computational tools, artificial intelligence and machine-learning approaches in gut microbiota and biomarker identification.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Review
- MetaAnalyst: a user-friendly tool for metagenomic biomarker detection and phenotype classification.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Article
- A machine learning framework to determine geolocations from metagenomic profiling.Biology direct · 2020Article
- Feature selection with the Fisher score followed by the Maximal Clique Centrality algorithm can accurately identify the hub genes of hepatocellular carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Age Is Important for the Early-Stage Detection of Breast Cancer on Both Transcriptomic and Methylomic Biomarkers.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Reliable Biomarker discovery from Metagenomic data via RegLRSD algorithm.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent developments of high throughput sequencing technologies allow the characterization of the microbial communities inhabiting our world. Various metagenomic studies have suggested using microbial taxa as potential biomarkers for certain diseases. In practice, the number of available samples varies from experiment to experiment. Therefore, a robust biomarker detection algorithm is needed to provide a set of potential markers irrespective of the number of available samples. Consistent performance is essential to derive solid biological conclusions and to transfer these findings into clinical applications. Surprisingly, the consistency of a metagenomic biomarker detection algorithm with respect to the variation in the experiment size has not been addressed by the current state-of-art algorithms.
resultsWe propose a consistency-classification framework that enables the assessment of consistency and classification performance of a biomarker discovery algorithm. This evaluation protocol is based on random resampling to mimic the variation in the experiment size. Moreover, we model the metagenomic data matrix as a superposition of two matrices. The first matrix is a low-rank matrix that models the abundance levels of the irrelevant bacteria. The second matrix is a sparse matrix that captures the abundance levels of the bacteria that are differentially abundant between different phenotypes. Then, we propose a novel Robust Principal Component Analysis (RPCA) based biomarker discovery algorithm to recover the sparse matrix. RPCA belongs to the class of multivariate feature selection methods which treat the features collectively rather than individually. This provides the proposed algorithm with an inherent ability to handle the complex microbial interactions. Comprehensive comparisons of RPCA with the state-of-the-art algorithms on two realistic datasets are conducted. Results show that RPCA consistently outperforms the other algorithms in terms of classification accuracy and reproducibility performance.
conclusionsThe RPCA-based biomarker detection algorithm provides a high reproducibility performance irrespective of the complexity of the dataset or the number of selected biomarkers. Also, RPCA selects biomarkers with quite high discriminative accuracy. Thus, RPCA is a consistent and accurate tool for selecting taxanomical biomarkers for different microbial populations. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by Masanori Arita and Zoltan Gaspari.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.