Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33575585›Full record

ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2020

Variable selection in microbiome compositional data analysis.

Antoni Susin, Yiwen Wang, Kim-Anh Lê Cao, M Luz Calle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A fast solution to the lasso problem with equality constraints.Journal of computational and graphical statistics : a joint publication of American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Interface Foundation of North America · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Antoni SusinMathematical Department, UPC-Barcelona Tech, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Yiwen WangMelbourne Integrative Genomics, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Kim-Anh Lê CaoMelbourne Integrative Genomics, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
M Luz CalleBiosciences Department, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Carrer de la Laura, 13, 08500 Vic, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9334-415X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Though variable selection is one of the most relevant tasks in microbiome analysis, e.g. for the identification of microbial signatures, many studies still rely on methods that ignore the compositional nature of microbiome data. The applicability of compositional data analysis methods has been hampered by the availability of software and the difficulty in interpreting their results. This work is focused on three methods for variable selection that acknowledge the compositional structure of microbiome data:

Identifiers

PMID33575585
PMCPMC7671404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.