Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38903761›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024

Evaluation of normalization methods for predicting quantitative phenotypes in metagenomic data analysis.

Beibei Wang, Yihui Luan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Beibei WangFrontier Science Center for Nonlinear Expectations, Ministry of Education, Qingdao, China.
Yihui LuanFrontier Science Center for Nonlinear Expectations, Ministry of Education, Qingdao, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

batch correctioncompositional data analysismachine learningmetagenomicnormalizationphenotype predictionscalingtransformation

Identifiers

PMID38903761
PMCPMC11188486

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.