IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v110y2023i1p169-185..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust differential abundance test in compositional data

Author

Listed:
  • Shulei Wang

Abstract

SummaryDifferential abundance tests for compositional data are essential and fundamental in various biomedical applications, such as single-cell, bulk RNA-seq and microbiome data analysis. However, because of the compositional constraint and the prevalence of zero counts in the data, differential abundance analysis on compositional data remains a complicated and unsolved statistical problem. This article proposes a new differential abundance test, the robust differential abundance test, to address these challenges. Compared with existing methods, the robust differential abundance test is simple and computationally efficient, is robust to prevalent zero counts in compositional datasets, can take the data’s compositional nature into account, and has a theoretical guarantee of controlling false discoveries in a general setting. Furthermore, in the presence of observed covariates, the robust differential abundance test can work with covariate-balancing techniques to remove potential confounding effects and draw reliable conclusions. The proposed test is applied to several numerical examples, and its merits are demonstrated using both simulated and real datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Shulei Wang, 2023. "Robust differential abundance test in compositional data," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 110(1), pages 169-185.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:110:y:2023:i:1:p:169-185.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/biomet/asac029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruoqi Yu & Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2019. "Directional penalties for optimal matching in observational studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 1380-1390, December.
    2. Yuanpei Cao & Anru Zhang & Hongzhe Li, 2020. "Multisample estimation of bacterial composition matrices in metagenomics data," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 107(1), pages 75-92.
    3. Huang Lin & Shyamal Das Peddada, 2020. "Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias correction," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Kosuke Imai & Marc Ratkovic, 2014. "Covariate balancing propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(1), pages 243-263, January.
    5. Kim-Anh Lê Cao & Mary-Ellen Costello & Vanessa Anne Lakis & François Bartolo & Xin-Yi Chua & Rémi Brazeilles & Pascale Rondeau, 2016. "MixMC: A Multivariate Statistical Framework to Gain Insight into Microbial Communities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Efron, Bradley, 2004. "Large-Scale Simultaneous Hypothesis Testing: The Choice of a Null Hypothesis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 96-104, January.
    7. James T. Morton & Clarisse Marotz & Alex Washburne & Justin Silverman & Livia S. Zaramela & Anna Edlund & Karsten Zengler & Rob Knight, 2019. "Establishing microbial composition measurement standards with reference frames," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruoqi Yu, 2021. "Evaluating and improving a matched comparison of antidepressants and bone density," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1276-1288, December.
    2. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    3. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    4. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    5. Plamen Nikolov & Hongjian Wang & Kevin Acker, 2020. "Wage premium of Communist Party membership: Evidence from China," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 309-338, August.
    6. Stefano Carattini & Suphi Sen, 2019. "Carbon Taxes and Stranded Assets: Evidence from Washington State," CESifo Working Paper Series 7785, CESifo.
    7. Kline, Patrick & Walters, Christopher, 2019. "Audits as Evidence: Experiments, Ensembles, and Enforcement," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3z72m9kn, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    8. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Doubly Robust Identification for Causal Panel Data Models," Papers 1909.09412, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    9. Ott, Laurent & Weber, Sylvain, 2022. "How effective is carbon taxation on residential heating demand? A household-level analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    10. Luke Connelly & Gianluca Fiorentini & Marica Iommi, 2022. "Supply-side solutions targeting demand-side characteristics: causal effects of a chronic disease management program on adherence and health outcomes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1203-1220, September.
    11. Soojin Park & Peter M. Steiner & David Kaplan, 2018. "Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Average Causal Mediation Effects with Time-Varying Treatments and Mediators: Investigating the Underlying Mechanisms of Kindergarten Retention Policy," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(2), pages 298-320, June.
    12. María de los Angeles Resa & José R. Zubizarreta, 2020. "Direct and stable weight adjustment in non‐experimental studies with multivalued treatments: analysis of the effect of an earthquake on post‐traumatic stress," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1387-1410, October.
    13. Marco Mariani & Alessandra Mattei & Lorenzo Storchi & Daniele Vignoli, 2017. "The ambiguous effects of public assistance to youth and female start-ups between job creation and entrepreneurship enhancement," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2017_04, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    14. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    15. Francesca Caselli & Mr. Philippe Wingender, 2018. "Bunching at 3 Percent: The Maastricht Fiscal Criterion and Government Deficits," IMF Working Papers 2018/182, International Monetary Fund.
    16. Ganesh Karapakula, 2023. "Stable Probability Weighting: Large-Sample and Finite-Sample Estimation and Inference Methods for Heterogeneous Causal Effects of Multivalued Treatments Under Limited Overlap," Papers 2301.05703, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    17. Tamara Bischof & Boris Kaiser, 2021. "Who cares when you close down? The effects of primary care practice closures on patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2004-2025, September.
    18. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2021. "Dynamic covariate balancing: estimating treatment effects over time with potential local projections," Papers 2103.01280, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    19. Tenglong Li & Jordan Lawson, 2021. "A generalized bootstrap procedure of the standard error and confidence interval estimation for inverse probability of treatment weighting," Papers 2109.00171, arXiv.org.
    20. Jelena Bradic & Stefan Wager & Yinchu Zhu, 2019. "Sparsity Double Robust Inference of Average Treatment Effects," Papers 1905.00744, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:110:y:2023:i:1:p:169-185.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.