ArticleArXiv2024
Group-wise normalization in differential abundance analysis of microbiome samples.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivation: A key challenge in differential abundance analysis of microbial samples is that the counts for each sample are compositional, resulting in biased comparisons of the absolute abundance across study groups. Normalization-based differential abundance analysis methods rely on external normalization factors that account for the compositionality by standardizing the counts onto a common numerical scale. However, existing normalization methods have struggled at maintaining the false discovery rate in settings where the variance or compositional bias is large. This article proposes a novel framework for normalization that can reduce bias in differential abundance analysis by re-conceptualizing normalization as a group-level task. We present two normalization methods within the group-wise framework: group-wise relative log expression (G-RLE) and fold-truncated sum scaling (FTSS). Results: G-RLE and FTSS achieve higher statistical power for identifying differentially abundant taxa than existing methods in model-based and synthetic data simulation settings, while maintaining the false discovery rate in challenging scenarios where existing methods suffer. The best results are obtained from using FTSS normalization with the differential abundance analysis method MetagenomeSeq. Availability and Implementation: Code for implementing the methods and replicating the analysis can be found at our GitHub page.
Identifiers
39936028PMC11812596What 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.