ArticleMicrobial genomics2025
Impact of simulation and reference catalogues on the evaluation of taxonomic profiling pipelines.
Article in Microbial genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbiome profiling tools rely on reference catalogues, which significantly affect their performance. Comparing them is, however, challenging, mainly due to differences in their native catalogues. In this study, we present a novel standardized benchmarking framework that makes such comparisons more accurate. We decided not to customize databases but to translate results to a common reference to use the tools with their native environment. Specifically, we conducted two realistic simulations of gut microbiome samples, each based on a specific taxonomic profiler, and used two different taxonomic references to project their results, namely the Genome Taxonomy Database and the Unified Human Gastrointestinal Genome. To demonstrate the importance of using such a framework, we evaluated four established profilers as well as the impact of the simulations and that of the common taxonomic references on the perceived performance of these profilers. Finally, we provide guidelines to enhance future profiler comparisons for human microbiome ecosystems: (i) use or create realistic simulations tailored to your biological context (BC), (ii) identify a common feature space suited to your BC and independent of the catalogues used by the profilers and (iii) apply a comprehensive set of metrics covering accuracy (sensitivity/precision), overall representativity (richness/Shannon) and quantification (UniFrac and/or Aitchison distance).
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.