ArticlePloS one2025
Investigating statistical power of differential abundance studies.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Gut microbiome in type 2 diabetes: insights from metagenomics, multi-omics, and diet-microbe interactions.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- The relationship between the gut microbiota and neuropsychological development and behaviour during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review of epidemiological studies.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Review
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
Identifying microbial taxa that differ in abundance between groups (control/treatment, healthy/diseased, etc.) is important for both basic and applied science. As in all scientific research, microbiome studies must have good statistical power to detect taxa with substantially different abundance between treatments; low power leads to poor precision and biased effect size estimates. Several studies have raised concerns about low power in microbiome studies. In this study, we investigate statistical power in differential abundance analysis. In particular, we present a novel approach for estimating the statistical power to detect effects at the level of individual taxa as a function of effect size (fold change) and mean abundance. We analyzed seven real case-control microbiome datasets and developed a novel method for simulating microbiome data. We illustrate how power varies with effect size and mean abundance; our results suggest that typical differential abundance studies are underpowered for detecting changes in individual taxon.
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.