Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38868345›Full record

ArticleiMeta2023

A guide for comparing microbial co-occurrence networks.

Chi Liu, Chaonan Li, Yanqiong Jiang, Raymond J Zeng, Minjie Yao, Xiangzhen Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iMeta, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. The bacteria of a fig community.Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Continuous cropping of lavender (Frontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Advancing the study of microbial symbionts of amphibians and reptiles.Frontiers in amphibian and reptile science · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Chi LiuEngineering Research Center of Soil Remediation of Fujian Province University, College of Resources and Environment Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Fuzhou China.ORCID 0000-0003-4055-8677
Chaonan LiKey Laboratory of Environmental and Applied Microbiology, CAS, Environmental Microbiology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology Chinese Academy of Sciences Chengdu China.
Yanqiong JiangEngineering Research Center of Soil Remediation of Fujian Province University, College of Resources and Environment Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Fuzhou China.
Raymond J ZengEngineering Research Center of Soil Remediation of Fujian Province University, College of Resources and Environment Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Fuzhou China.
Minjie YaoEngineering Research Center of Soil Remediation of Fujian Province University, College of Resources and Environment Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Fuzhou China.ORCID 0000-0001-7501-0519
Xiangzhen LiKey Laboratory of Environmental and Applied Microbiology, CAS, Environmental Microbiology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu Institute of Biology Chinese Academy of Sciences Chengdu China.ORCID 0000-0001-6499-0179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The article provides a pipeline for comparing microbial co-occurrence networks based on the R microeco package and meconetcomp package. It has high flexibility and expansibility and can help users efficiently compare networks built from different groups of samples or different construction approaches.

Identifiers

PMID38868345
PMCPMC10989802

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.