Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35867822›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

LOCOM: A logistic regression model for testing differential abundance in compositional microbiome data with false discovery rate control.

Yingtian Hu, Glen A Satten, Yi-Juan Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Yingtian HuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.
Glen A SattenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322.ORCID 0000-0001-7275-5371
Yi-Juan HuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322.ORCID 0000-0003-2171-9041

Funding

Association Tests of Rare Variants Using Sequence Reads without Calling GenotypesR01GM116065 · NIGMS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI HU, YIJUAN · 2015 to 2019
$1.5M
Novel Statistical Methods for Analyzing Complex Microbiome DataR01GM141074 · NIGMS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI SU, CHANG · 2021 to 2024
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM116065NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM141074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compositional analysis is based on the premise that a relatively small proportion of taxa are differentially abundant, while the ratios of the relative abundances of the remaining taxa remain unchanged. Most existing methods use log-transformed data, but log-transformation of data with pervasive zero counts is problematic, and these methods cannot always control the false discovery rate (FDR). Further, high-throughput microbiome data such as 16S amplicon or metagenomic sequencing are subject to experimental biases that are introduced in every step of the experimental workflow. McLaren et al. [

Indexed as

MicrobiotaLogistic ModelsMetagenomicsSequence Analysisexperimental biaslogit modellog ratiopseudocountsparse data

Identifiers

PMID35867822
PMCPMC9335309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.