Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36617187›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023

Benchmarking differential abundance analysis methods for correlated microbiome sequencing data.

Lu Yang, Jun Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The Beneficial Effects ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    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.

Lu YangDivision of Computational Biology, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55901, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5234-3190
Jun ChenDivision of Computational Biology, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55901, USA.

Funding

Methods for microbiome compositional dataR01GM144351 · NIGMS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Jun Chen, Xianyang Zhang · 2022 to 2026
$1.6M
Methods for Analysis of Genomic Data with Auxiliary InformationR21HG011662 · NHGRI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI CHEN, JUN, ZHANG, XIANYANG · 2021 to 2022
$434k
NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG011662NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM144351NIH HHS R01 GM144351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential abundance analysis (DAA) is one central statistical task in microbiome data analysis. A robust and powerful DAA tool can help identify highly confident microbial candidates for further biological validation. Current microbiome studies frequently generate correlated samples from different microbiome sampling schemes such as spatial and temporal sampling. In the past decade, a number of DAA tools for correlated microbiome data (DAA-c) have been proposed. Disturbingly, different DAA-c tools could sometimes produce quite discordant results. To recommend the best practice to the field, we performed the first comprehensive evaluation of existing DAA-c tools using real data-based simulations. Overall, the linear model-based methods LinDA, MaAsLin2 and LDM are more robust than methods based on generalized linear models. The LinDA method is the only method that maintains reasonable performance in the presence of strong compositional effects.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaDatabases, FactualLinear ModelsMetagenomicsdifferential abundance analysislongitudinalmatched-pairmetagenomicsmicrobiomerepeated sampling

Identifiers

PMID36617187
PMCPMC9851339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.