ArticlePeerJ2018
Fine-scale differentiation between
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the hypothetical role ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- MTSv: rapid alignment-based taxonomic classification and high-confidence metagenomic analysis.PeerJ · 2022Article
- UniqueInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- On the transformation of MinHash-based uncorrected distances into proper evolutionary distances for phylogenetic inference.F1000Research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is possible to detect bacterial species in shotgun metagenome datasets through the presence of only a few sequence reads. However, false positive results can arise, as was the case in the initial findings of a recent New York City subway metagenome project. False positives are especially likely when two closely related are present in the same sample.
methodsUsing public complete genome sequence datasets, we identified a set of 31-mer signatures that differentiated
resultsWe found 239,503 DISCUSSION: This work shows how extensive libraries of complete genomes can be used to create organism-specific signatures to help interpret metagenomes. We contrast "specialist" approaches to metagenome analysis such as this work to "generalist" software that seeks to classify all organisms present in the sample and note the more general utility of a k-mer filter approach when taxonomic boundaries lack clarity or high levels of precision are required.
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.