Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40890119›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Microbiome data integration via shared dictionary learning.

Bo Yuan, Shulei Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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.

Bo YuanDepartment of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA. boyuan5@illinois.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5428-4447
Shulei WangDepartment of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA. shuleiw@illinois.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7440-9544

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) DBI-2243257National Science Foundation (NSF) DMS-2515171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data integration is a powerful tool for facilitating a comprehensive and generalizable understanding of microbial communities and their association with outcomes of interest. However, integrating data sets from different studies remains a challenging problem because of severe batch effects, unobserved confounding variables, and high heterogeneity across data sets. We propose a new data integration method called MetaDICT, which initially estimates the batch effects by weighting methods in causal inference literature and then refines the estimation via novel shared dictionary learning. Compared with existing methods, MetaDICT can better avoid the overcorrection of batch effects and preserve biological variation when there exist unobserved confounding variables, data sets are highly heterogeneous across studies, or the batch is completely confounded with some covariates. Furthermore, MetaDICT can generate comparable embedding at both taxa and sample levels that can be used to unravel the hidden structure of the integrated data and improve the integrative analysis. Applications to synthetic and real microbiome data sets demonstrate the robustness and effectiveness of MetaDICT in integrative analysis. Using MetaDICT, we characterize microbial interaction, identify generalizable microbial signatures, and enhance the accuracy of outcome prediction in two real integrative studies, including an integrative analysis of colorectal cancer metagenomics studies and a meta-analysis of immunotherapy microbiome studies.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaColorectal NeoplasmsComputational BiologyGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansImmunotherapyMachine LearningMetagenomics

Identifiers

PMID40890119
PMCPMC12402269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.