ArticleMicrobiome2026
Scale reliant mixed effects models enhance microbiome data analysis.
Article in Microbiome, 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.
- Uncertainty Modeling Outperforms Machine Learning for Microbiome Data Analysis.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Linear models, including those used for differential abundance analyses, are frequently used in microbiome research to assess how experimental conditions (e.g., disease state or age) affect microbial abundance. Linear mixed-effects models (MEMs) extend linear models to accommodate complex designs, such as longitudinal sampling or hierarchical study structures. However, when applied to microbiome data, existing MEM approaches suffer from high false positive and false negative rates because sequence counts are compositional - they reflect relative rather than absolute abundances. Current methods attempt to overcome this limitation through normalization, but these approaches rely on strong, often unrealistic assumptions about the unmeasured biological scale (e.g., total microbial load). Here we introduce scale-reliant mixed-effects models (SR-MEM), which extend our earlier scale-reliant inference framework by explicitly modeling uncertainty in the unmeasured scale via user-defined probability distributions. By treating scale as a latent variable rather than fixing it through normalization, SR-MEM enables robust inference for complex experimental designs. SR-MEM can incorporate external scale measurements (e.g., flow cytometry, qPCR) or leverage scale information from independent studies to further improve inference. Across simulations and multiple real-world case studies, SR-MEM consistently controls the false discovery rate while maintaining comparable or higher power than standard approaches relying on normalization or bias correction. In reanalyses of published datasets, SR-MEM yields results that are more reproducible across studies and more consistent with known biological and pharmacological effects. SR-MEM provides a principled and practical framework for mixed-effects modeling of microbiome sequence count data in the presence of unmeasured biological scale. By avoiding normalization-based assumptions and instead propagating scale uncertainty through inference, SR-MEM improves error control and reproducibility in longitudinal and hierarchical studies. An accessible implementation is provided in the ALDEx3 R package.
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.