standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no relations between claims. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | metagenomic features - organisms, clades, OTUs, genes or pathways - that differ between two or more microbial communities Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how to find biomarkers that EXPLAIN a difference between conditions rather than merely differ across them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | LEfSe: significance, biological consistency and effect size coupled into one procedure, which the paper says no existing method provides together Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | differential abundance of microbial features between phenotypes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | system-or-tool-building Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: system-or-tool-building | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: the quote carries a line-break hyphen scar: the paper's “Kruskal-Wallis” is staged as “Kruskal- Wallis”. Verbatim against the staged text; the damage is mid-name and cannot be re-sliced around. Confidence 0.85 under an earlier note of ours. | mechanisms[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE TRADE IS STATED AND PRICED: a substantially better false positive rate is bought with a moderately increased false negative rate, and the paper says the user can adjust where it sits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | There are typically far more candidate biomarkers than samples, which is a property of the data and not of the method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: the quote carries a spurious space inside a word (taxonomy shape 8): “associated with” is staged as “associated w ith”. Confidence 0.85. | limitations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Microbial communities show remarkably high inter-subject variability, alongside sequencing errors and chimeric reads Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Finding a biomarker is stated to be only a PRECURSOR to understanding a mechanism - the method does not claim to deliver the biology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the approach validated on three independent bodies of data - human microbiomes, a mouse model of ulcerative colitis, and environmental samples Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a biomarker method tuned to one dataset's structure - three data sources of different kinds are what shows the discovery is not a property of any one of them · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | class comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: class comparison | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | class discovery Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: class discovery | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | class prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: class prediction | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | LEfSe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: LEfSe | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | biological consistency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: biological consistency | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | effect relevance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect relevance | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | statistical significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical significance | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | biomarkers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: biomarkers | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | false positive rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false positive rate | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | false negative rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: false negative rate | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | P-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: P-value | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inter-subject variability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-subject variability | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | concepts[13] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prior biological knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prior biological knowledge | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | high-dimensional data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: high-dimensional data | concepts[15] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| senses | class comparison - EXPLAINING a difference between phenotypes in terms of consistent pathways or mechanisms. Distinguished by the paper from class DISCOVERY (finding subtypes) and class PREDICTION (assigning a new sample) - three tasks, one dataset, and the paper says which one it is doing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | effect size - USED HERE AS AN ORTHOGONAL AXIS TO THE P-VALUE, not as a refinement of it: a very significant difference can be too small to matter, and a marker at p = 0.01 can carry a large effect whose significance was eaten by technical noise Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | class comparison —distinct-from→ class prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: class comparison · class prediction | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | effect size —distinct-from→ statistical significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: effect size · statistical significance | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | biological consistency —part-of→ LEfSe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: biological consistency · LEfSe | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | effect relevance —part-of→ LEfSe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: effect relevance · LEfSe | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.