ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026
Evaluating Methods for High-Dimensional Mediation in Metabolomics Data.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Blood metabolomic signatures linking air pollution to lung cancer in the Cancer Prevention Studies.Nature communications · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated high-dimensional mediation analysis methods (HIMA by Zheng et al. and HDMA by Gao et al.) and the "Meet-in-the-Middle" (MITM) approach using simulated metabolomics data. Simulations varied in sample size, mediator set size, correlation structure, proportion of true mediators, and mediation effect size (beta). We assessed each method's ability to estimate the total indirect effect (TIE), component indirect effects (CIEs), sensitivity, and specificity. In scenarios with independent metabolites, HIMA and HDMA reliably estimated CIEs, while HDMA provided the most accurate estimate of the TIE. MITM generally underestimated the TIE, and HIMA showed improved TIE estimates with higher mediator effect sizes. In correlated settings, CIE estimation was not feasible due to the lack of identifiable causal contrasts, and all methods underestimated the TIE. Sensitivity declined in low beta, small sample size, and high-dimensional scenarios, though specificity remained high (>90%) across all methods. Findings suggest that HIMA offers the most accurate mediation results but may exclude meaningful features through dimensionality reduction. Therefore, applying parallel mediation approaches, such as MITM and HIMA, and focusing on the overlapping findings would be recommended. These results underscore the need for the development of robust, scalable mediation methods tailored to untargeted metabolomics data.
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.