Investigating statistical power of differential abundance studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying microbial taxa that differ in abundance between groups (control/treatment, healthy/diseased, etc.) is important for both basic and applied science. As in all scientific research, microbiome studies must have good statistical power to detect taxa with substantially different abundance between treatments; low power leads to poor precision and biased effect size estimates. Several studies have raised concerns about low power in microbiome studies. In this study, we investigate statistical power in differential abundance analysis. In particular, we present a novel approach for estimating the statistical power to detect effects at the level of individual taxa as a function of effect size (fold change) and mean abundance. We analyzed seven real case-control microbiome datasets and developed a novel method for simulating microbiome data. We illustrate how power varies with effect size and mean abundance; our results suggest that typical differential abundance studies are underpowered for detecting changes in individual taxon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.262 | 0.623 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".