Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33768631›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2021

Meta-analysis methods for multiple related markers: Applications to microbiome studies with the results on multiple α-diversity indices.

Hyunwook Koh, Susan Tuddenham, Cynthia L Sears, Ni Zhao

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hyunwook KohDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, The State University of New York, Korea, Incheon, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6893-7164
Susan TuddenhamDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Cynthia L SearsDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ni ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USSUNY Korea · KR

Funding

ECHODAC (Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Data Analysis Center)U24OD023382 · OD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Diane J Catellier, LISA P JACOBSON · 2016 to 2026
$148.4M
Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIH HHS U24 OD023382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis is a practical and powerful analytic tool that enables a unified statistical inference across the results from multiple studies. Notably, researchers often report the results on multiple related markers in each study (eg, various α-diversity indices in microbiome studies). However, univariate meta-analyses are limited to combining the results on a single common marker at a time, whereas existing multivariate meta-analyses are limited to the situations where marker-by-marker correlations are given in each study. Thus, here we introduce two meta-analysis methods, multi-marker meta-analysis (mMeta) and adaptive multi-marker meta-analysis (aMeta), to combine multiple studies throughout multiple related markers with no priori results on marker-by-marker correlations. mMeta is a statistical estimator for a pooled estimate and its SE across all the studies and markers, whereas aMeta is a statistical test based on the test statistic of the minimum P-value among marker-specific meta-analyses. mMeta conducts both effect estimation and hypothesis testing based on a weighted average of marker-specific pooled estimates while estimating marker-by-marker correlations non-parametrically via permutations, yet its power is only moderate. In contrast, aMeta closely approaches the highest power among marker-specific meta-analyses, yet it is limited to hypothesis testing. While their applications can be broader, we illustrate the use of mMeta and aMeta to combine microbiome studies throughout multiple α-diversity indices. We evaluate mMeta and aMeta in silico and apply them to real microbiome studies on the disparity in α-diversity by the status of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The R package for mMeta and aMeta is freely available at https://github.com/hk1785/mMeta.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaBiomarkersComputer SimulationHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicMultivariate AnalysisResearch DesignBiomarkersadaptive meta-analysismeta-analysis for microbiome studiesmeta-analysis for α-diversity indicesmulti-marker meta-analysisnon-parametric meta-analysisrandom effects meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID33768631
PMCPMC8325033
OpenAlexW3139007161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.