Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Group-wise normalization in differential abundance analysis of microbiome samples

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Group-wise normalization fixes microbiome abundance bias

desk verdict A genuinely new group-wise normalization idea with solid simulations, but the FTSS tuning parameter p* needs a sensitivity analysis before the headline claim is robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15400 v1 pith:QKW64NXQ submitted 2024-11-23 q-bio.GN

Dylan Clark-Boucher , Brent A Coull , Harrison T Reeder , Fenglei Wang , Qi Sun , Jacqueline R Starr , Kyu Ha Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.GN
keywords microbiomedifferentialabundanceanalysiscompositionalbiasgroup-wisenormalizationfalsediscoveryratereferencetaxazero-inflationrelativelogexpression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that compositional bias in differential abundance analysis of microbiome data is not a per-sample nuisance but a single group-level quantity: the log ratio of total absolute abundance between the two groups being compared. It derives this bias term from a simple multinomial model and shows that all observed log fold changes are shifted by the same additive constant. On that basis it proposes two normalization methods, G-RLE and FTSS, which estimate this one constant from pooled group-level data instead of estimating separate scaling factors for every sample. In model-based and synthetic-data simulations, both methods achieve higher power for detecting differentially abundant taxa than existing normalizers while keeping false discovery rates near nominal levels in settings where competitors fail.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is equation (1): under a log-linear model for absolute abundances followed by multinomial sampling, the pooled observed relative abundance converges to $\exp(\beta_{0j}+\beta_{1j}g)/\sum_k \exp(\beta_{0k}+\beta_{1k}g)$, so the maximum-likelihood observed log fold change converges to $\beta_{1j}+\Delta$. This turns normalization into estimation of the single parameter $\Delta$. G-RLE estimates it through the median of group-level fold changes, and FTSS estimates it as the mode of the observed log fold-change distribution via Gaussian kernel density, then rescales each sample's library size using only taxa within a percentile window around that mode.

What would settle it

Generate a two-group microbiome dataset under the paper's multinomial model but with 60% of taxa having nonzero true log fold changes, then apply FTSS followed by MetagenomeSeq. If the method works, the estimated $\hat{\Delta}$ should still equal the true $\Delta$ and the false discovery rate should stay near 0.05; a drift in $\hat{\Delta}$ and FDR inflation would falsify the mode-based correction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed log fold change $\hat{\alpha}_{1j}$ for taxon $j$ converges to the true log fold change $\beta_{1j}$ plus a taxon-invariant bias $\Delta = \log\left(\sum_j e^{\beta_{0j}} / \sum_j e^{\beta_{0j}+\beta_{1j}}\right)$, which is exactly the log ratio of average total absolute abundance in the two groups. Because $\Delta$ does not depend on $j$, correcting it is a group-level problem: estimate one number, not $n$ sample fractions. G-RLE does this by applying relative-log-expression normalization to the two pooled group profiles, and FTSS does it by truncating the library size to taxa whose observed log fold changes cluster near the estimated mode, the assumed location of $\Delta$ when only a minority of taxa are differentially abundant. The paper establishes this derivation and supports the methods with simulations showing improved true positive rate and false discovery rate control, particularly for MetagenomeSeq analysis of zero-inflated, high-variance data.

Load-bearing premise

The method depends on the assumption that most taxa are equally abundant between the groups, so that the mode of observed log fold changes sits at the bias term; if a majority of taxa change, the reference set is contaminated and the correction misses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using FTSS or G-RLE as a preprocessing step for MetagenomeSeq gives higher true positive rates than TSS, TMM, RLE, GMPR, CSS, and Wrench in the paper's simulations, with FDR held near nominal even at 20–30% differential abundance.
  • The derivation implies that any DAA method using a library-size offset can incorporate the group-level correction, so edgeR and DESeq2 also gain power when paired with FTSS, except in the PHACS-like sparse-data setting where DESeq2 loses FDR control.
  • Because the group-level pooled counts are strictly positive, G-RLE and FTSS are expected to be robust to zero-inflation, a common feature of microbiome count matrices.
  • The bias term $\Delta$ is a single number, so correcting it is statistically easier than estimating $n$ sample-specific normalization factors, which explains the performance gain in high-variance scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition of bias into a taxon-invariant constant likely applies to any compositional count data with a binary covariate, such as RNA-seq or metabolomics, so FTSS could be tested outside the microbiome without modification.
  • The mode-based estimator for $\Delta$ could be replaced by a trimmed mean or a robust location estimator to handle cases where the minority-of-signals assumption is only approximately met; the paper does not explore this variant.
  • For multi-group or continuous covariate designs, the single-constant bias structure breaks down; one could generalize $\Delta$ to a per-group vector, but this would require a different reference-taxa rule than FTSS.
  • A natural stress test is to vary the signal proportion continuously from 5% to 50%: the paper tests 10–30%, and the method's performance should degrade smoothly as the mode becomes less identifiable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a group-wise normalization framework for differential abundance analysis of microbiome count data. The authors derive that, under a log-linear model of absolute abundance and a binary covariate, each taxon's observed log fold change converges to the true log fold change plus a common bias term Δ equal to the log ratio of total absolute abundances between groups. They propose two normalization methods: G-RLE, which applies RLE to pooled group-level relative abundances, and FTSS, which estimates Δ as the mode of observed log fold changes and constructs a truncated library size from taxa near that mode. In model-based simulations (18 settings) and synthetic data based on two real microbiome datasets, the methods are compared to TSS, TMM, RLE, GMPR, CSS, and Wrench, paired with edgeR, DESeq2, and metagenomeSeq. The authors report that FTSS and G-RLE achieve higher true positive rates while maintaining FDR near 0.05 in many challenging settings, with FTSS + metagenomeSeq performing best. Code is publicly available.

Significance. If the results are substantiated, the group-wise normalization perspective is a valuable conceptual contribution: it reduces compositional bias to a single group-level parameter and suggests that group-level pooling may be more robust to zero inflation than sample-level normalization. The simulation study is extensive, with 1000 replicates per setting and realistic synthetic data, and the derivation of Equation (1) is clearly presented. The public availability of code is a strength. However, the empirical claims depend on tuning parameters that are not examined, and the framework's scope is explicitly limited to binary covariates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1.4, Figures 1, 3, 4] The FTSS method depends on two tuning parameters: the truncation proportion p* (illustrated with p*=40% in Figure 1) and the bandwidth of the Gaussian kernel density estimator used to estimate the mode of observed log fold changes. No sensitivity analysis is reported for either parameter. Since p* controls the bias-variance trade-off in the reference taxon set and the bandwidth affects the mode estimate, the headline result that FTSS attains the highest true positive rate in every setting (Section 3.1, Figure 3) may be specific to the chosen tuning values. The theoretical derivation gives no guidance for choosing p*, and the absence of a robustness check means the central empirical claim is not fully supported.
  2. [Section 3.2, Discussion] The abstract claims the proposed methods maintain the false discovery rate in challenging scenarios, but in the PHACS synthetic data with DESeq2, no normalization method including G-RLE and FTSS controls the FDR (Section 3.2, Figure 4). The paper acknowledges this in the Discussion but does not qualify the abstract's claim. The conditions under which the proposed methods fail should be stated, or the claim should be restricted to the settings where the methods succeed.
  3. [Section 2.1.1, Discussion] The framework is formally derived only for a binary covariate and a model where absolute abundances are deterministic within each group up to log-linear terms. The Discussion notes that continuous covariates are outside the scope, but the manuscript does not state the additional assumptions required for Δ to be a single common bias term when subject-level random effects are present (e.g., identical random-effect distributions across groups). The simulations do include random effects, but the derivation is not formally extended; this should be clarified so that readers know the exact conditions under which the proposed methods are guaranteed to remove compositional bias.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1.4] In the formula for S_FTSS, the expression uses ρ(α1j) without a hat; it should be ρ(\hat α1j) to match the definition of ρ as a function of the observed log fold changes.
  2. [Section 2.1.4] The sentence 'the bias term ∆ in would disappear' is missing a reference; it should point to Equation (1).
  3. [Section 2.2.1] The list of varied parameters reads 'β1q, . . . , β1q'; this should be 'β11, . . . , β1q'.
  4. [Discussion] The phrase 'the the development of methods' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  5. [Section 5] The competing interests statement says 'no competing interest'; it should say 'no competing interests.'
  6. [Supplementary materials] The supplementary materials referenced in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2 are not included in the arXiv posting; please ensure they are uploaded for review, as the reproducibility of the simulation results depends on them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Δ-bias derivation is a self-contained limit result, and the proposed normalizers are evaluated forward on simulated known truth.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (Section 2.1.1) is a mathematical limit result: under the stated multinomial/log-linear model, the pooled observed log fold change converges to β1j + Δ, with Δ = log(Σ exp(β0j)/Σ exp(β0j+β1j)). This is not equivalent to its inputs; the bias term is derived, not assumed. G-RLE and FTSS estimate this bias from group-level summaries, and the claim that a median-zero true log fold change makes the bias vanish follows from the algebra of the normalization factors (Section 2.1.3), not from fitting the outcome. FTSS's reference-taxon selection (Section 2.1.4) uses observed log fold changes to build a truncated library size; this is a data-driven estimator of the same bias term, analogous to trimming in TMM, and is not circular because the final differential-abundance estimates are not used to define the reference set. The simulation evaluations are forward: data are generated from known β1 values, the methods do not see these values, and TPR/FDR are computed externally. The paper's own limitation passages—that FTSS assumes a minority of differentially abundant taxa and that all methods failed on PHACS with edgeR/DESeq2—confirm the methods are not forced to succeed by construction. The only self-citations (Lee et al. 2020 for the correlation simulation model; cohort data-handling references) are not load-bearing for the bias-correction claim. Concerns about the fixed tuning parameter p* and KDE bandwidth are robustness questions, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the authors.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of assumptions: the log-linear deterministic model for absolute abundance, sparsity of differential abundance, and a binary covariate. These are clearly stated in the paper, and the first is acknowledged as a mathematical convenience. The FTSS tuning parameters p* and kernel bandwidth are free choices not driven by external benchmarks.

free parameters (2)
  • FTSS truncation proportion (p*) = 0.40 (used in illustration)
    The proportion of taxa included in the truncated library size is pre-specified, but not data-driven. Different p* values may change performance, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Kernel density bandwidth for mode estimation = not reported
    FTSS estimates delta using Gaussian kernel density estimation; the bandwidth is a free choice that affects the mode estimate, but the paper does not state the bandwidth selection rule.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Absolute abundance is deterministic within each group: log Aij = beta0j + beta1j Xi
    This forms the basis of the bias derivation, simplifying within-group variability away (Section 2.1.1).
  • domain assumption Only a minority of taxa are differentially abundant (sparsity)
    Required for FTSS (mode of observed log fold changes approximates delta) and G-RLE (median log fold change zero), stated in Section 2.1.4.
  • standard math Counts are multinomial given library size and relative abundances
    This is the standard compositional assumption for microbiome sequencing data (Section 2.1.1).
  • domain assumption Poisson regression gives usable log fold change estimates for the derivation
    The derivation uses Poisson MLE for tractability, though downstream DAA methods include edgeR, DESeq2, and metagenomeSeq, which use other models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Group-wise normalization in differential abundance analysis of microbiome samples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKW64NXQ

@misc{pith2026241115400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Group-wise normalization in differential abundance analysis of microbiome samples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKW64NXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15400}
}
read the original abstract

A key challenge in differential abundance analysis of microbial samples is that the counts for each sample are compositional, resulting in biased comparisons of the absolute abundance across study groups. Normalization-based differential abundance analysis methods rely on external normalization factors that account for the compositionality by standardizing the counts onto a common numerical scale. However, existing normalization methods have struggled at maintaining the false discovery rate in settings where the variance or compositional bias is large. This article proposes a novel framework for normalization that can reduce bias in differential abundance analysis by re-conceptualizing normalization as a group-level task. We present two normalization methods within the group-wise framework: group-wise relative log expression (G-RLE) and fold-truncated sum scaling (FTSS). G-RLE and FTSS achieve higher statistical power for identifying differentially abundant taxa than existing methods in model-based and synthetic data simulation settings, while maintaining the false discovery rate in challenging scenarios where existing methods suffer. The best results are obtained from using FTSS normalization with the differential abundance analysis method MetagenomeSeq. Code for implementing the methods and replicating the analysis can be found at our GitHub page (https://github.com/dclarkboucher/microbiome_groupwise_normalization).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gut microbiome and health: mechanistic insights

    De Vos WM, Tilg H, Van Hul M, Cani PD. Gut microbiome and health: mechanistic insights. Gut. 2022 May;71(5):1020–1032. https://doi.org/10.1136/ gutjnl-2021-326789

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    The Human Microbiome: Our Second Genome

    Grice EA, Segre JA. The Human Microbiome: Our Second Genome. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 2012;13(1):151–170. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-genom-090711-163814

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-090711-163814 2012

  3. [3]

    Compositional data analysis of the microbiome: fundamentals, tools, and challenges

    Tsilimigras MCB, Fodor AA. Compositional data analysis of the microbiome: fundamentals, tools, and challenges. Annals of Epidemiology. 2016;26(5):330–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.03.002. 15

    work page doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.03.002 2016

  4. [4]

    Microbiome Datasets Are Compositional: And This Is Not Optional

    Gloor GB, Macklaim JM, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Egozcue JJ. Microbiome Datasets Are Compositional: And This Is Not Optional. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:2224. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02224

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias cor- rection

    Lin H, Peddada SD. Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias cor- rection. Nature Communications. 2020;11(1):3514. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-020-17041-7

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A comprehensive evaluation of microbial differential abun- dance analysis methods: current status and potential solutions

    Yang L, Chen J. A comprehensive evaluation of microbial differential abun- dance analysis methods: current status and potential solutions. Microbiome. 2022 Aug;10(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-022-01320-0

    work page doi:10.1186/s40168-022-01320-0 2022

  7. [7]

    edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data

    Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan;26(1):139–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616

    doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 2010

  8. [8]

    Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2

    Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biology. 2014 Dec;15(12):550. https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8

    doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 2014

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys

    Paulson JN, Stine OC, Bravo HC, Pop M. Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys. Nature Methods. 2013 Dec;10(12):1200–1202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2658

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    A review of normal- ization and differential abundance methods for microbiome counts data

    Swift D, Cresswell K, Johnson R, Stilianoudakis S, Wei X. A review of normal- ization and differential abundance methods for microbiome counts data. WIREs Computational Statistics. 2023;15(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1586

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    LinDA: linear models for differential abundance analysis of microbiome compositional data

    Zhou H, He K, Chen J, Zhang X. LinDA: linear models for differential abundance analysis of microbiome compositional data. Genome Biology. 2022;23(1):95. https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13059-022-02655-5

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Differential expression analysis for sequence count data

    Anders S, Huber W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biology. 2010;11(10):R106

    2010

  5. [13]

    A Survey of Statis- tical Methods for Microbiome Data Analysis

    Lutz KC, Jiang S, Neugent ML, De Nisco NJ, Zhan X, Li Q. A Survey of Statis- tical Methods for Microbiome Data Analysis. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics. 2022;8:884810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2022.884810

    2022

  6. [14]

    A robust approach for identifying differentially abundant features in metagenomic samples

    Sohn MB, Du R, An L. A robust approach for identifying differentially abundant features in metagenomic samples. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(14):2269–2275. https: //doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv165

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    GMPR: A robust nor- malization method for zero-inflated count data with application to microbiome sequencing data

    Chen L, Reeve J, Zhang L, Huang S, Wang X, Chen J. GMPR: A robust nor- malization method for zero-inflated count data with application to microbiome sequencing data. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4600. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4600. 16

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Analysis and correction of compositional bias in sparse sequencing count data

    Kumar MS, Slud EV, Okrah K, Hicks SC, Hannenhalli S, Corrada Bravo H. Analysis and correction of compositional bias in sparse sequencing count data. BMC Genomics. 2018;19(1):799. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-5160-5

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data

    Robinson MD, Oshlack A. A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biology. 2010;11(3):R25. https: //doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Analysis of microbial compositions: a review of normalization and differential abundance analysis

    Lin H, Peddada SD. Analysis of microbial compositions: a review of normalization and differential abundance analysis. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes. 2020;6(1):60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-020-00160-w

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology. 1995 Jan;57(1):289–300. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

    1995

  12. [20]

    Bayesian variable selec- tion for multivariate zero-inflated models: Application to microbiome count data

    Lee KH, Coull BA, Moscicki AB, Paster BJ, Starr JR. Bayesian variable selec- tion for multivariate zero-inflated models: Application to microbiome count data. Biostatistics. 2020;21(3):499–517. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxy067

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    The Poisson-Lognormal Model as a Versatile Framework for the Joint Analysis of Species Abundances

    Chiquet J, Mariadassou M, Robin S. The Poisson-Lognormal Model as a Versatile Framework for the Joint Analysis of Species Abundances. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2021;9:588292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.588292

    2021

  14. [22]

    Multi-Variate Probit Analysis

    Ashford JR, Sowden RR. Multi-Variate Probit Analysis. Biometrics. 1970 Sep;26(3):535–546. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/ 10.2307/2529107

    1970 doi

  15. [23]

    Van Dyke RB, Patel K, Siberry GK, Burchett SK, Spector SA, Chernoff MC, et al. Antiretroviral Treatment of US Children With Perinatally Acquired HIV Infection: Temporal Changes in Therapy Between 1991 and 2009 and Predictors of Immunologic and Virologic Outcomes. JAIDS Journal...

    1991 doi

  16. [24]

    The association between oral disease and type of antiretroviral therapy among perinatally HIV-infected youth

    Shiboski CH, Yao TJ, Russell JS, Ryder MI, Van Dyke RB, Seage GR, et al. The association between oral disease and type of antiretroviral therapy among perinatally HIV-infected youth. AIDS. 2018 Nov;32(17):2497–2505. https://doi. org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000001965

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Sali- vary metabolite levels in perinatally HIV-infected youth with periodontal disease

    Schulte F, King OD, Paster BJ, Moscicki AB, Yao TJ, Van Dyke RB, et al. Sali- vary metabolite levels in perinatally HIV-infected youth with periodontal disease. Metabolomics. 2020 Sep;16(9):98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-020-01719-6

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions 17 of sequences per sample

    Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters W A, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turn- baugh PJ, et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions 17 of sequences per sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011 Mar;108(supplement):4516–4522. https://doi.org/...

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Microbiomes of Endodontic-Periodontal Lesions before and after Chemomechanical Preparation

    Gomes BPF A, Berber VB, Kokaras AS, Chen T, Paster BJ. Microbiomes of Endodontic-Periodontal Lesions before and after Chemomechanical Preparation. Journal of Endodontics. 2015 Dec;41(12):1975–1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joen.2015.08.022

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    The Human Oral Microbiome

    Dewhirst FE, Chen T, Izard J, Paster BJ, Tanner ACR, Yu WH, et al. The Human Oral Microbiome. Journal of Bacteriology. 2010 Oct;192(19):5002–5017. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00542-10

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Dietary lignans, plasma enterolactone levels, and metabolic risk in men: exploring the role of the gut microbiome

    Li Y, Wang F, Li J, Ivey KL, Wilkinson JE, Wang DD, et al. Dietary lignans, plasma enterolactone levels, and metabolic risk in men: exploring the role of the gut microbiome. BMC Microbiology. 2022 Dec;22(1):82. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12866-022-02495-0

    2022

  22. [30]

    Plant-Based Diet Index and Metabolic Risk in Men: Exploring the Role of the Gut Microbiome

    Li Y, Wang DD, Satija A, Ivey KL, Li J, Wilkinson JE, et al. Plant-Based Diet Index and Metabolic Risk in Men: Exploring the Role of the Gut Microbiome. The Journal of Nutrition. 2021 Sep;151(9):2780–2789. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jn/nxab175

    2021

  23. [31]

    Stability of the human faecal microbiome in a cohort of adult men

    Mehta RS, Abu-Ali GS, Drew DA, Lloyd-Price J, Subramanian A, Lochhead P, et al. Stability of the human faecal microbiome in a cohort of adult men. Nature Microbiology. 2018 Jan;3(3):347–355. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41564-017-0096-0

    2018

  24. [32]

    The Mind–Body Study: study design and reproducibility and interrela- tionships of psychosocial factors in the Nurses’ Health Study II

    Huang T, Trudel-Fitzgerald C, Poole EM, Sawyer S, Kubzansky LD, Hankinson SE, et al. The Mind–Body Study: study design and reproducibility and interrela- tionships of psychosocial factors in the Nurses’ Health Study II. Cancer Causes I& Control. 2019 Jul;30(7):779–790. https:/...

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Gut feelings: associations of emotions and emotion regulation with the gut microbiome in women

    Ke S, Guimond AJ, Tworoger SS, Huang T, Chan AT, Liu YY, et al. Gut feelings: associations of emotions and emotion regulation with the gut microbiome in women. Psychological Medicine. 2023 Nov;53(15):7151–7160. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0033291723000612

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Extending and improving metagenomic taxonomic profiling with uncharacterized species using MetaPhlAn 4

    Blanco-M ´ ıguez A, Beghini F, Cumbo F, McIver LJ, Thompson KN, Zolfo M, et al. Extending and improving metagenomic taxonomic profiling with uncharacterized species using MetaPhlAn 4. Nature Biotechnology. 2023 Nov;41(11):1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01688-w

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Inte- gration of epidemiological and blood biomarker analysis links haem iron intake to increased type 2 diabetes risk

    Wang F, Glenn AJ, Tessier AJ, Mei Z, Haslam DE, Guasch-Ferr´ e M, et al. Inte- gration of epidemiological and blood biomarker analysis links haem iron intake to increased type 2 diabetes risk. Nature Metabolism. 2024 Aug;6(9):1807–1818. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-024-01109-5. 18

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Moderate alco- hol consumption, types of beverages and drinking pattern with cardiometabolic biomarkers in three cohorts of US men and women

    Li X, Hur J, Cao Y, Song M, Smith-Warner SA, Liang L, et al. Moderate alco- hol consumption, types of beverages and drinking pattern with cardiometabolic biomarkers in three cohorts of US men and women. European Journal of Epidemi- ology. 2023 Nov;38(11):1185–1196. https://doi...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Comparison of normal- ization methods for the analysis of metagenomic gene abundance data

    Pereira MB, Wallroth M, Jonsson V, Kristiansson E. Comparison of normal- ization methods for the analysis of metagenomic gene abundance data. BMC Genomics. 2018;19(1):274. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4637-6. 19

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.