Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33716568›Full record

ArticleBiometrika2021

Hypothesis testing for phylogenetic composition: a minimum-cost flow perspective.

Shulei Wang, T Tony Cai, Hongzhe Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrika, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Shulei WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.
T Tony CaiDepartment of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.
Hongzhe LiDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative comparison of microbial composition from different populations is a fundamental task in various microbiome studies. We consider two-sample testing for microbial compositional data by leveraging phylogenetic information. Motivated by existing phylogenetic distances, we take a minimum-cost flow perspective to study such testing problems. We first show that multivariate analysis of variance with permutation using phylogenetic distances, one of the most commonly used methods in practice, is essentially a sum-of-squares type of test and has better power for dense alternatives. However, empirical evidence from real datasets suggests that the phylogenetic microbial composition difference between two populations is usually sparse. Motivated by this observation, we propose a new maximum type test, detector of active flow on a tree, and investigate its properties. We show that the proposed method is particularly powerful against sparse phylogenetic composition difference and enjoys certain optimality. The practical merit of the proposed method is demonstrated by simulation studies and an application to a human intestinal biopsy microbiome dataset on patients with ulcerative colitis.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobiomePhylogenetic treeSparse alternativeWasserstein distance

Identifiers

PMID33716568
PMCPMC7937037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.