ArticleNucleic acids research2025
CAMI Benchmarking Portal: online evaluation and ranking of metagenomic software.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing FAIR data towards comparable, organized, predictive AI-ready data for community validation.Communications biology · 2026Review
- LEMMIv2: benchmarking framework for metagenomic and 16S amplicon profilers with a catalogue of evaluated tools.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Cleanifier: contamination removal from microbial sequences using spaced seeds of a human pangenome index.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Precision nutrition through diet-gut microbiome interactions: Emerging insights driven by artificial intelligence, microbiome health metrics, and mechanistic modeling.Gut microbes reports · 2026Review
- Interpreting fungal ecological contributions through taxonomic and functional profiling of metatranscriptomics.IMA fungus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Finding appropriate software and parameter settings to process shotgun metagenome data is essential for meaningful metagenomic analyses. To enable objective and comprehensive benchmarking of metagenomic software, the community-led initiative for the Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation (CAMI) promotes standards and best practices. Since 2015, CAMI has provided comprehensive datasets, benchmarking guidelines, and challenges. However, benchmarking had to be conducted offline, requiring substantial time and technical expertise and leading to gaps in results between challenges. We introduce the CAMI Benchmarking Portal-a central repository of CAMI resources and web server for the evaluation and ranking of metagenome assembly, binning, and taxonomic profiling software. The portal simplifies evaluation, enabling users to easily compare their results with previous and other users' submissions through a variety of metrics and visualizations. As a demonstration, we benchmark software performance on the marine dataset of the CAMI II challenge. The portal currently hosts 28 675 results and is freely available at https://cami-challenge.org/.
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.