Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102403›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

An optimal normalization method for high sparse compositional microbiome data.

Michael B Sohn, Cynthia Monaco, Steven R Gill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Michael B SohnBiostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4981-8351
Cynthia MonacoMedicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3093-5563
Steven R GillMicrobiology and Immunology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States of America.

Funding

The University of Rochester's Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002001 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI WILSON, KAREN M., ZAND, MARTIN S · 2016 to 2024
$34.6M
Neurobiological and neurocognitive consequences of diverse microbiome functional trajectoriesR01MH125103 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI STEVEN R. GILL, Thomas G O'Connor · 2022 to 2026
$3.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002001NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH125103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many omics data, including microbiome sequencing data, we are only able to measure relative information. Various computational or statistical methods have been proposed to extract absolute (or biologically relevant) information from this relative information; however, these methods are under rather strong assumptions that may not be suitable for multigroup (more than two groups) and/or longitudinal outcome data. In this article, we first introduce the minimal assumption required to extract absolute from relative information. This assumption is less stringent than those imposed in existing methods, thus being applicable to multigroup and/or longitudinal outcome data. We then propose the first normalization method that works under this minimal assumption. The optimality and validity of the proposed method and its beneficial effects on downstream analysis are demonstrated in extensive simulation studies, where existing methods fail to produce consistent performance under the minimal assumption. We also demonstrate its application to real microbiome datasets to determine biologically relevant microbes to a specific disease/condition.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMicrobiotaAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID39102403
PMCPMC11326560

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.