Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36510128›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022

llperm: a permutation of regressor residuals test for microbiome data.

Markus Viljanen, Hendriek Boshuizen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Markus ViljanenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment - RIVM, PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. markus.viljanen@rivm.nl.
Hendriek BoshuizenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment - RIVM, PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferential abundance testing is an important aspect of microbiome data analysis, where each taxa is fitted with a statistical test or a regression model. However, many models do not provide a good fit to real microbiome data. This has been shown to result in high false positive rates. Permutation tests are a good alternative, but a regression approach is desired for small data sets with many covariates, where stratification is not an option.

resultsWe implement an R package 'llperm' where the The Permutation of Regressor Residuals (PRR) test can be applied to any likelihood based model, not only generalized linear models. This enables distributions with zero-inflation and overdispersion, making the test suitable for count regression models popular in microbiome data analysis. Simulations based on a real data set show that the PRR-test approach is able to maintain the correct nominal false positive rate expected from the null hypothesis, while having equal or greater power to detect the true positives as models based on likelihood at a given false positive rate.

conclusionsStandard count regression models can have a shockingly high false positive rate in microbiome data sets. As they may lead to false conclusions, the guaranteed nominal false positive rate gained from the PRR-test can be viewed as a major benefit.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaComputer SimulationLikelihood FunctionsLinear ModelsBioinformaticsMicrobiomeStatistics

Identifiers

PMID36510128
PMCPMC9743778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.