ArticleGenes2023
Impact of Data and Study Characteristics on Microbiome Volatility Estimates.
Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering the impact of microbial interactions on COPD exacerbation: An in-depth analysis of the lung microbiome.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Special series on the role of the microbiome in reproduction and fertility.Reproduction & fertility · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human microbiome is a dynamic community of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms. Both the composition of the microbiome (the microbes that are present and their relative abundances) and the temporal variability of the microbiome (the magnitude of changes in their composition across time, called volatility) has been associated with human health. However, the effect of unbalanced sampling intervals and differential read depth on the estimates of microbiome volatility has not been thoroughly assessed. Using four publicly available gut and vaginal microbiome time series, we subsampled the datasets to several sampling intervals and read depths and then compared additive, multiplicative, centered log ratio (CLR)-based, qualitative, and distance-based measures of microbiome volatility between the conditions. We find that longer sampling intervals are associated with larger quantitative measures of change (particularly for common taxa), but not with qualitative measures of change or distance-based volatility quantification. A lower sequencing read depth is associated with smaller multiplicative, CLR-based, and qualitative measures of change (particularly for less common taxa). Strategic subsampling may serve as a useful sensitivity analysis in unbalanced longitudinal studies investigating clinical associations with microbiome volatility.
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.