waldronlab / waldronlab/agent-protocols

Protocol: two-stage hierarchical meta-analysis across diseases

Open
#27 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

advanced blocked composite-protocol statistics
Dominant language
No language data
Stars
0
Forks
1
Avg merge
1h 2m
Merged PRs (30d)
9

Description

Tier: D (cMD paper) · Type: composite · Category: Statistical Analysis

What

Where a disease is represented by several datasets, pool within the disease first; then pool the resulting per-disease summaries across diseases in a second stage — keeping the two levels of between-study variance distinct rather than throwing every dataset into one flat pool.

Why it matters

Flattening would let the four multi-dataset diseases (colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, Crohn's, ulcerative colitis) dominate a 15-disease synthesis. The hierarchy is the correct handling and it is a genuinely non-obvious design that deserves to be written down separately from the pooling arithmetic.

Source material

  • waldronlab/curatedMetagenomicDataAnalysespython_tools/hierarchical_metaanalysis.py, python_tools/hierarchical_binary_test.py, cMD3_paper_analyses/all_command_lines_py.sh (SECTION 2: hierarchical meta-analysis on 12 diseases)
  • Paper: 10.1038/s41467-025-66888-1

Scope

In: the rule for which diseases enter stage one; how a single-dataset disease is carried into stage two; propagation of the stage-one standard errors; whether heterogeneity is re-estimated at stage two; multiple testing applied at which stage.

Out: the pooling arithmetic itself (component protocol).

Frontmatter starting point

type: "composite"
category: "Statistical Analysis"
citation: "10.1038/s41467-025-66888-1"
protocols_used:
  - name: "per-dataset-smd-covariate-adjusted"
  - name: "random-effects-meta-analysis-pm"

Acceptance criteria

  • Single-dataset diseases have an explicitly defined treatment at stage two
  • States at which stage FDR correction is applied, and why
  • Note: the paper text says 15 diseases and the analysis scripts say 12 — resolve and document which is right

Cite the method's origin, not its users

PROTOCOL_STANDARD.md is explicit: an atomic protocol carries "strictly 1 citation... corresponding
to the primary literature where the method was originally published."
Find the paper that proposed
the method. Do not cite a paper that merely applied it — including the BugSigDB and curatedMetagenomicData
papers, which are the source of the analysis these protocols were extracted from but almost never the
source of the method.

Tracing a method back to its first publication is real work, and it is part of the task, not a
formality. Three things to expect:

  • Candidate DOIs in this issue are leads, not answers. Anything marked VERIFY has not been checked.
  • Some methods predate modern citation practice or have no single identifiable origin. If that is
    genuinely the case, say so in the pull request rather than reaching for a convenient recent paper.
    Raise it as an issue in waldronlab/agent-protocol-standard — the standard may need a way to express
    "classical method, no primary source".
  • If you cannot name one paper that proposed everything the protocol does, it is more than one
    protocol.
    That test has now split four protocols out of this batch: enrichment into three methods,
    filtering from transformation, LODO from random forest, and PERMANOVA from ANOSIM.

Where the lab's own paper genuinely did propose the method — the oral-to-gut score, and LODO
cross-validation in Pasolli et al. 2016 — citing it is correct. That is the exception, not the pattern.

Before you start

Read CONTRIBUTING.md and
PROTOCOL_STANDARD.md.
The format is defined in the standard repo, not this one. Protocols are prose, not code: they say what to do
and why, precisely enough that two people — or two agents, in two languages — get the same answer. The existing
independent-filtering-variance
protocol is the model to imitate for tone and level of detail.

Validate locally before opening the PR:

git clone https://github.com/waldronlab/agent-protocol-standard.git
Rscript agent-protocol-standard/scripts/validate-protocol.R protocols

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Read CONTRIBUTING.md, PROTOCOL_STANDARD.md, and protocols/independent-filtering-variance/protocol.md first. Inspect hierarchical_metaanalysis.py, hierarchical_binary_test.py, and SECTION 2 of cMD3_paper_analyses/all_command_lines_py.sh, then trace the method to its primary paper. Document stage-one and stage-two disease handling, standard-error and FDR rules, and the 15-versus-12 discrepancy; validate with the supplied Rscript command.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
markdown, python, r, yaml
Domain
documentation
Issue type
Documentation
Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
48/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.