Back

Strengthening The Organizing and Reporting of Microbiome Studies (STORMS)

Mirzayi, C. A.; Renson, A.; Zohra, F.; Elsafoury, S.; Geistlinger, L.; Kasselman, L.; Eckenrode, K.; van de Wijgert, J. H.; Loughman, A.; Marques, F.; STORMS Consortium, ; Genomic Standards Consortium, ; Massive Analysis and Quality Control Society, ; Segata, N.; Beghini, F.; Huttenhower, C.; Dowd, J. B.; Jones, H.; Waldron, L. D.

2020-12-01 genomics
10.1101/2020.06.24.167353 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHuman microbiome research is a growing field with the potential for improving our understanding and treatment of diseases and other conditions. The field is interdisciplinary, making concise organization and reporting of results across different styles of epidemiology, biology, bioinformatics, translational medicine, and statistics a challenge. Commonly used reporting guidelines for observational or genetic epidemiology studies lack key features specific to microbiome studies. MethodsA multidisciplinary group of microbiome epidemiology researchers reviewed elements of available reporting guidelines for observational and genetic studies and adapted these for application to culture-independent human microbiome studies. New reporting elements were developed for laboratory, bioinformatic, and statistical analyses tailored to microbiome studies, and other parts of these checklists were streamlined to keep reporting manageable. ResultsSTORMS is a 17-item checklist for reporting on human microbiome studies, organized into six sections covering typical sections of a scientific publication, presented as a table with space for author-provided details and intended for inclusion in supplementary materials. ConclusionsSTORMS provides guidance for authors and standardization for interdisciplinary microbiome studies, facilitating complete and concise reporting and augments information extraction for downstream applications. AvailabilityThe STORMS checklist is available as a versioned spreadsheet from https://www.stormsmicrobiome.org/.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.