ArticleMetabolites2022
Evaluation of Normalization Approaches for Quantitative Analysis of Bile Acids in Human Feces.
Article in Metabolites, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The faecal bulk heterogeneity: implications for homogenisation and spot-sampling strategies for metabolomic investigations.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2026Article
- Revisiting the Metabolism of Donepezil in Rats Using Non-Targeted Metabolomics and Molecular Networking.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Standardization of Fecal Metabolomics Using Microbiome Preservation Kits: Implications for Multiomics Integration.International journal of analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Impact of a Fruit-Vegetable Preparation Fortified with Potato Starch Resistant Dextrin on Selected Health Indicators in Overweight Children.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Evaluation of normalization strategies for GC-based metabolomics.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024Article
- Altered fecal bile acid composition in active ulcerative colitis.Lipids in health and disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative analysis of bile acids in human feces can potentially help to better understand the influence of the gut microbiome and diet on human health. Feces is a highly heterogeneous sample matrix, mainly consisting of water and indigestible solid material (as plant fibers) that show high inter-individual variability. To compare bile acid concentrations among different individuals, a reliable normalization approach is needed. Here, we compared the impact of three normalization approaches, namely sample wet weight, dry weight, and protein concentration, on the absolute concentrations of fecal bile acids. Bile acid concentrations were determined in 70 feces samples from healthy humans. Our data show that bile acid concentrations normalized by the three different approaches are substantially different for each individual sample. Fecal bile acid concentrations normalized by wet weight show the narrowest distribution. Therefore, our analysis will provide the basis for the selection of a suitable normalization approach for the quantitative analysis of bile acids in feces.
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.