ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Evaluating supervised and unsupervised background noise correction in human gut microbiome data.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a Novel Food Rich in Miraculin on the Intestinal Microbiome of Malnourished Patients with Cancer and Dysgeusia.Nutrients · 2025Trial
- Streptococcus abundance and oral site tropism in humans and non-human primates reflects host and lifestyle differences.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- Quantifying bias introduced by sample collection in relative and absolute microbiome measurements.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Diversified Shifts in the Cross Talk between Members of the Gut Microbiota and Development of Coronary Artery Diseases.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Ancient dental calculus preserves signatures of biofilm succession and interindividual variation independent of dental pathology.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to predict human phenotypes and identify biomarkers of disease from metagenomic data is crucial for the development of therapeutics for microbiome-associated diseases. However, metagenomic data is commonly affected by technical variables unrelated to the phenotype of interest, such as sequencing protocol, which can make it difficult to predict phenotype and find biomarkers of disease. Supervised methods to correct for background noise, originally designed for gene expression and RNA-seq data, are commonly applied to microbiome data but may be limited because they cannot account for unmeasured sources of variation. Unsupervised approaches address this issue, but current methods are limited because they are ill-equipped to deal with the unique aspects of microbiome data, which is compositional, highly skewed, and sparse. We perform a comparative analysis of the ability of different denoising transformations in combination with supervised correction methods as well as an unsupervised principal component correction approach that is presently used in other domains but has not been applied to microbiome data to date. We find that the unsupervised principal component correction approach has comparable ability in reducing false discovery of biomarkers as the supervised approaches, with the added benefit of not needing to know the sources of variation apriori. However, in prediction tasks, it appears to only improve prediction when technical variables contribute to the majority of variance in the data. As new and larger metagenomic datasets become increasingly available, background noise correction will become essential for generating reproducible microbiome analyses.
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.