ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Evaluation of normalization methods for predicting quantitative phenotypes in metagenomic data analysis.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Metagenomic approaches for the quantification of antibiotic resistance genes in swine wastewater treatment system: a systematic review.Molecular biology reports · 2025Pooled it
- A realistic simulation-based benchmark of microbiome normalization in sample stratification and taxa-level analysis.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Systems-level investigation of the anxiolytic gut-brain interactions induced by paraprobioticFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Alterations in DNA Methylation, Proteomic, and Metabolomic Profiles in African Ancestry Populations with APOL1 Risk Alleles.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025Article
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
Genotype-to-phenotype mapping is an essential problem in the current genomic era. While qualitative case-control predictions have received significant attention, less emphasis has been placed on predicting quantitative phenotypes. This emerging field holds great promise in revealing intricate connections between microbial communities and host health. However, the presence of heterogeneity in microbiome datasets poses a substantial challenge to the accuracy of predictions and undermines the reproducibility of models. To tackle this challenge, we investigated 22 normalization methods that aimed at removing heterogeneity across multiple datasets, conducted a comprehensive review of them, and evaluated their effectiveness in predicting quantitative phenotypes in three simulation scenarios and 31 real datasets. The results indicate that none of these methods demonstrate significant superiority in predicting quantitative phenotypes or attain a noteworthy reduction in Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of the predictions. Given the frequent occurrence of batch effects and the satisfactory performance of batch correction methods in predicting datasets affected by these effects, we strongly recommend utilizing batch correction methods as the initial step in predicting quantitative phenotypes. In summary, the performance of normalization methods in predicting metagenomic data remains a dynamic and ongoing research area. Our study contributes to this field by undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of diverse methods and offering valuable insights into their effectiveness in predicting quantitative phenotypes.
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.