ArticleF1000Research2024
Computational Study Protocol: Leveraging Synthetic Data to Validate a Benchmark Study for Differential Abundance Tests for 16S Microbiome Sequencing Data.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Differential Abundance Tests for 16S microbiome sequencing data using simulated data based on experimental templates.PloS one · 2025Article
- Semisynthetic simulation for microbiome data analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
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
Background: Synthetic data's utility in benchmark studies depends on its ability to closely mimic real-world conditions and reproduce results obtained from experimental data. Building on Nearing et al.'s study (1), who assessed 14 differential abundance tests using 38 experimental 16S rRNA datasets in a case-control design, we are generating synthetic datasets that mimic the experimental data to verify their findings. We will employ statistical tests to rigorously assess the similarity between synthetic and experimental data and to validate the conclusions on the performance of these tests drawn by Nearing et al. (1). This protocol adheres to the SPIRIT guidelines, demonstrating how established reporting frameworks can support robust, transparent, and unbiased study planning. Methods: We replicate Nearing et al.'s (1) methodology, incorporating synthetic data simulated using two distinct tools, mirroring the 38 experimental datasets. Equivalence tests will be conducted on a non-redundant subset of 46 data characteristics comparing synthetic and experimental data, complemented by principal component analysis for overall similarity assessment. The 14 differential abundance tests will be applied to synthetic and experimental datasets, evaluating the consistency of significant feature identification and the number of significant features per tool. Correlation analysis and multiple regression will explore how differences between synthetic and experimental data characteristics may affect the results. Conclusions: Synthetic data enables the validation of findings through controlled experiments. We assess how well synthetic data replicates experimental data, try to validate previous findings with the most recent versions of the DA methods and delineate the strengths and limitations of synthetic data in benchmark studies. Moreover, to our knowledge this is the first computational benchmark study to systematically incorporate synthetic data for validating differential abundance methods while strictly adhering to a pre-specified study protocol following SPIRIT guidelines, contributing to transparency, reproducibility, and unbiased research.
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.