ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023
Accommodating multiple potential normalizations in microbiome associations studies.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. 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.
- Explicit Scale Simulation for analysis of RNA-sequencing count data with ALDEx2.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Incorporating scale uncertainty in microbiome and gene expression analysis as an extension of normalization.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Review and revamp of compositional data transformation: A new framework combining proportion conversion and contrast transformation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Assessment of Distinct Gut Microbiome Signatures in a Diverse Cohort of Patients Undergoing Definitive Treatment for Rectal Cancer.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024Article
- Beyond Normalization: Incorporating Scale Uncertainty in Microbiome and Gene Expression Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Statistical normalization methods in microbiome data with application to microbiome cancer research.Gut microbes · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicrobial communities are known to be closely related to many diseases, such as obesity and HIV, and it is of interest to identify differentially abundant microbial species between two or more environments. Since the abundances or counts of microbial species usually have different scales and suffer from zero-inflation or over-dispersion, normalization is a critical step before conducting differential abundance analysis. Several normalization approaches have been proposed, but it is difficult to optimize the characterization of the true relationship between taxa and interesting outcomes.
resultsTo avoid the challenge of picking an optimal normalization and accommodate the advantages of several normalization strategies, we propose an omnibus approach. Our approach is based on a Cauchy combination test, which is flexible and powerful by aggregating individual p values. We also consider a truncated test statistic to prevent substantial power loss. We experiment with a basic linear regression model as well as recently proposed powerful association tests for microbiome data and compare the performance of the omnibus approach with individual normalization approaches. Experimental results show that, regardless of simulation settings, the new approach exhibits power that is close to the best normalization strategy, while controling the type I error well.
conclusionsThe proposed omnibus test releases researchers from choosing among various normalization methods and it is an aggregated method that provides the powerful result to the underlying optimal normalization, which requires tedious trial and error. While the power may not exceed the best normalization, it is always much better than using a poor choice of normalization.
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.