ArticleGut microbes2025
Impact of data compositionality on the detection of microbiota responses.
Article in Gut microbes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profiling the gut resistome to unlock antimicrobial resistance biology and inform clinical risk.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Article
- Trust your gut: the neuro-gastroenteric mechanics of prediction and expectation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
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
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) data usage is widespread, but its compositional nature poses challenges. We evaluated four normalization methods (relative abundance, CLR, TMM, DESeq2) for identifying true signals in compositional microbiota data using simulations. Two experiments were conducted: one with only increases in specific taxa, and a 1:1 increase/decrease in specific taxa. Simulated sequencing produced compositional data, which were normalized using the four methods. The study compared absolute abundance data and the normalized compositional data using variance explained and false discovery rates. All normalization methods showed decreased variance explained and increased false positives and negatives compared to absolute abundance data. CLR, TMM, and DESeq2 did not improve over relative abundance data and sometimes worsened false discovery rates. The study highlights that false positives and negatives are common in compositional NGS datasets, and current normalization methods do not consistently address these issues. Compositionality artefacts should be considered when interpreting NGS results and obtaining absolute abundances of features/taxa is recommended to distinguish biological signals from artefacts.
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.