Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40071205›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025

Composite quantile regression approach to batch effect correction in microbiome data.

Jiwon Park, Taesung Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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.

Jiwon ParkInterdisciplinary Program of Bioinformatics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Taesung ParkDepartment of Statistics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Batch effects refer to data variations that arise from non-biological factors such as experimental conditions, equipment, and external factors. These effects are considered significant issues in the analysis of biological data since they can compromise data consistency and distort actual biological differences, which can severely skew the results of downstream analyses. Method: In this study, we introduce a new approach that comprehensively addresses two types of batch effects: "systematic batch effects" which are consistent across all samples in a batch, and "nonsystematic batch effects" which vary depending on the variability of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) within each sample in the same batch. To address systematic batch effects, we apply a negative binomial regression model and correct for consistent batch influences by excluding fixed batch effects. Additionally, to handle nonsystematic batch effects, we employ composite quantile regression. By adjusting the distribution of OTUs to be similar based on a reference batch selected using the Kruskal-Walis test method, we consider the variability at the OTU level. Results: The performance of the model is evaluated and compared with existing methods using PERMANOVA R-squared values, Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) plots and Average Silhouette Coefficient calculated with diverse distance-based metrics. The model is applied to three real microbiome datasets: Metagenomic urine control data, Human Immunodeficiency Virus Re-analysis Consortium data, and Men and Women Offering Understanding of Throat HPV study data. The results demonstrate that the model effectively corrects for batch effects across all datasets.

Indexed as

batch effectcomposite quantile regressionmicrobiomeover-dispersionzero inflation

Identifiers

PMID40071205
PMCPMC11893821

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.