ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Combining
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral Microbiome Signatures in Indonesian Healthy, Gingivitis, and Periodontitis Subjects: A 16S rRNA Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis-Based Exploratory Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Truth-based physics informed estimation of material composition in spectral CT in terms of density and effective atomic number.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Virus Genome Sequences in the Blood of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Cauchy combination test for count data.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: In the field of microbiome analysis, there exist various statistical methods that have been developed for identifying differentially expressed features, that account for the overdispersion and the high sparsity of microbiome data. However, due to the differences in statistical models or test formulations, it is quite often to have inconsistent significance results across statistical methods, that makes it difficult to determine the importance of microbiome taxa. Thus, it is practically important to have the integration of the result from all statistical methods to determine the importance of microbiome taxa. A standard meta-analysis is a powerful tool for integrative analysis and it provides a summary measure by combining Results: In this study, we investigated which meta-analysis method most adequately represents the importance of microbiome taxa. We considered Fisher's method, minimum value of
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.