Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37577699›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Major data analysis errors invalidate cancer microbiome findings.

Abraham Gihawi, Yuchen Ge, Jennifer Lu, Daniela Puiu, Amanda Xu, Colin S Cooper, Daniel S Brewer, Mihaela Pertea, Steven L Salzberg

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Abraham GihawiNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Yuchen GeCenter for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jennifer LuCenter for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Daniela PuiuCenter for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Amanda XuCenter for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Colin S CooperNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Daniel S BrewerNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Mihaela PerteaCenter for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Steven L SalzbergCenter for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Computational Methods for Genome Assembly, Transcript Assembly, and Variant DiscoveryR01HG006677 · NHGRI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SALZBERG, STEVEN L. · 2011 to 2025
$10.7M
Computational Methods for Microbial and Microbiome Sequence AnalysisR35GM130151 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Steven L. Salzberg · 2019 to 2026
$2.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006677NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM130151
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We re-analyzed the data from a recent large-scale study that reported strong correlations between microbial organisms and 33 different cancer types, and that created machine learning predictors with near-perfect accuracy at distinguishing among cancers. We found at least two fundamental flaws in the reported data and in the methods: (1) errors in the genome database and the associated computational methods led to millions of false positive findings of bacterial reads across all samples, largely because most of the sequences identified as bacteria were instead human; and (2) errors in transformation of the raw data created an artificial signature, even for microbes with no reads detected, tagging each tumor type with a distinct signal that the machine learning programs then used to create an apparently accurate classifier. Each of these problems invalidates the results, leading to the conclusion that the microbiome-based classifiers for identifying cancer presented in the study are entirely wrong. These flaws have subsequently affected more than a dozen additional published studies that used the same data and whose results are likely invalid as well.

Identifiers

PMID37577699
PMCPMC10418105

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.