In one paragraphArticle in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from itWhat 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 registryThe 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 literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
9 authors.
Julia UrbanProgram for Mathematical Genomics, Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-6950-6435 Aya Brown KavProgram for Mathematical Genomics, Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-2085-126X William F KindschuhProgram for Mathematical Genomics, Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-7433-7808 Heekuk ParkDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-5815-9717 Raiyan R KhanDepartment of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Emily WattersDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0009-0006-8817-7362 Itsik Pe'erProgram for Mathematical Genomics, Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-6128-7231 Anne-Catrin UhlemannDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-9798-4768 Tal KoremProgram for Mathematical Genomics, Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-0609-0858 Funding
Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9MIndiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3MPreterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great RiskU10HD063036 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI PARKER, CORETTE BREEDEN · 2010 to 2015
$19.5MInstitute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR000153 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M · 2012 to 2015
$12.1MA large scale investigation of the vaginal metagenome and metabolome and their role in spontaneous preterm birthR01HD106017 · NICHD · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI KOREM, TAL · 2021 to 2025
$3.6MA large scale investigation of the vaginal ecosystem in preeclampsiaR01HD114715 · NICHD · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Tal Korem · 2024 to 2026
$2.1MPrevention of Preterm Birth in high Risk Nulliparous PatientsU10HD063047 · NICHD · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WAPNER, RONALD · 2010 to 2014
$1.9MPreterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great RiskU10HD063053 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI SILVER, ROBERT M. · 2010 to 2014
$1.7MPreterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great Risk U10HD063020 · NICHD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI GROBMAN, WILLIAM ADAM · 2010 to 2014
$1.6MPreterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great RiskU10HD063046 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI WING, DEBORAH A · 2010 to 2014
$1.6MPreterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great RiskU10HD063041 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI SIMHAN, HYAGRIV N · 2010 to 2014
$1.5MPreterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great RiskU10HD063048 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI PARRY, SAMUEL I. · 2010 to 2014
$1.5MNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000153NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108NICHD NIH HHS F30 HD108886NICHD NIH HHS F31 HD115394NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD106017NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD114715NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063020NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063036NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063037NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063041NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063046NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063047NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063048NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063053NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD063072NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
In microbiome studies, sample processing errors are frequent and difficult to detect, especially in large studies involving multiple sites, personnel, and sample types. We present two complementary approaches to identify such errors using host DNA profiled via metagenomic sequencing of microbiome samples. The first approach compares host SNPs inferred from metagenomics to independently obtained genotypes (e.g., microarray genotypes) to match samples to their donors, while the second method compares metagenomics-inferred SNPs between samples to identify samples supplied by the same donor. Furthermore, we demonstrate that combining these methods with experimental metadata provides greater confidence in the identification of errors. Analyzing a longitudinal vaginal microbiome dataset, we demonstrate the ability of our approach to identify mislabeled samples. Using subsampling, we further show that our methods are robust to low sequencing coverage. Overall, our analysis highlights the frequency of processing errors in microbiome studies. We therefore recommend applying error-detection methods in all studies with suitable data.
Identifiers
PMID40964394
PMCPMC12440029
What OpenQuestion holds
Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390