ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Semisynthetic simulation for microbiome data analysis.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint-RPCA: domain-aware multi-omics integration for systems microbiology.Molecular systems biology · 2026Article
- Multidimensional scaling informed by F-statistic: Visualizing grouped microbiome data with inference.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Design, processing, and modeling for longitudinal multiomics microbiome data.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- N2SIMBA: from Network topology to SIMulation of interactions and BActerial abundance, using microbial consumer resource model.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Genome-resolved surveillance and predictive ecological risk modeling of urban microbiomes.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Integrative systems biology approaches for analyzing microbiome dysbiosis and species interactions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing data lie at the heart of modern microbiome research. Effective analysis of these data requires careful preprocessing, modeling, and interpretation to detect subtle signals and avoid spurious associations. In this review, we discuss how simulation can serve as a sandbox to test candidate approaches, creating a setting that mimics real data while providing ground truth. This is particularly valuable for power analysis, methods benchmarking, and reliability analysis. We explain the probability, multivariate analysis, and regression concepts behind modern simulators and how different implementations make trade-offs between generality, faithfulness, and controllability. Recognizing that all simulators only approximate reality, we review methods to evaluate how accurately they reflect key properties. We also present case studies demonstrating the value of simulation in differential abundance testing, dimensionality reduction, network analysis, and data integration. Code for these examples is available in an online tutorial (https://go.wisc.edu/8994yz) that can be easily adapted to new problem settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.