Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37378680›Full record

ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2023

Statistical considerations and database limitations in NMR-based metabolic profiling studies.

Imani L Ross, Julie A Beardslee, Maria M Steil, Tafadzwa Chihanga, Michael A Kennedy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Imani L RossDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA.
Julie A BeardsleeDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA.
Maria M SteilDivision of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA.
Tafadzwa ChihangaDivision of Oncology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA.
Michael A KennedyDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA. kennedm4@miamioh.edu.
Miami University · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInterpretation and analysis of NMR-based metabolic profiling studies is limited by substantially incomplete commercial and academic databases. Statistical significance tests, including p-values, VIP scores, AUC values and FC values, can be largely inconsistent. Data normalization prior to statistical analysis can cause erroneous outcomes.

objectivesThe objectives were (1) to quantitatively assess consistency among p-values, VIP scores, AUC values and FC values in representative NMR-based metabolic profiling datasets, (2) to assess how data normalization can impact statistical significance outcomes, (3) to determine resonance peak assignment completion potential using commonly used databases and (4) to analyze intersection and uniqueness of metabolite space in these databases.

methodsP-values, VIP scores, AUC values and FC values, and their dependence on data normalization, were determined in orthotopic mouse model of pancreatic cancer and two human pancreatic cancer cell lines. Completeness of resonance assignments were evaluated using Chenomx, the human metabolite database (HMDB) and the COLMAR database. The intersection and uniqueness of the databases was quantified.

resultsP-values and AUC values were strongly correlated compared to VIP or FC values. Distributions of statistically significant bins depended strongly on whether or not datasets were normalized. 40-45% of peaks had either no or ambiguous database matches. 9-22% of metabolites were unique to each database.

conclusionsLack of consistency in statistical analyses of metabolomics data can lead to misleading or inconsistent interpretation. Data normalization can have large effects on statistical analysis and should be justified. About 40% of peak assignments remain ambiguous or impossible with current databases. 1D and 2D databases should be made consistent to maximize metabolite assignment confidence and validation.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMetabolomicsAnimalsCell LineDatabases, FactualHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMiceData normalizationMetabolic profilingMetabolite databasesMetabolomicsNMRStatistical significance

Identifiers

PMID37378680
OpenAlexW4382345072

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.