ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
Microbiome differential abundance methodologies to detect relevant taxa associated with chemotherapy toxicity rate in colorectal cancer.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: The interplay between microbial communities and treatment outcomes represents a promising area in pharmacomicrobiomics. Identifying microbial biomarkers that differentiate toxicity levels could inform personalized cancer strategies. However, biomarker identification is strongly influenced by methodological choices in differential abundance analysis (DAA), and most studies focus on individual outcomes despite toxicity being inherently multifactorial. In this study, we defined a multi-dimensional toxicity variable integrating clinical symptoms and treatment modifications to stratify colorectal cancer patients. We then evaluated six widely used DAA methods (ALDEx2, ANCOM-BC, DESeq2, LEfSe, LinDA, and ZicoSeq) to assess how analytical variability affects the detection of microbiome signatures associated with chemotherapy-related toxicity. Analyses were performed under different preprocessing and multiple-testing correction strategies, and consistency was further examined using an independent validation dataset. Results: Substantial variability was observed across methods, with limited overlap in detected taxa but moderate concordance in effect-size rankings. ANCOM-BC showed the most consistent overall performance across analytical scenarios, although trade-offs remained between taxa detection, ranking, and direction of association. Despite this variability, a subset of taxa was consistently identified across methods, including Availability and implementation: The data supporting this study are available at NCBI SRA database (PRJNA911189) and NCBI SRA database (PRJNA893853).
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.