Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Different Characteristics in Gut Microbiome between Advanced Adenoma Patients and Colorectal Cancer Patients by Metagenomic Analysis #190

Closed
SvetlanaUP opened this issue Mar 6, 2024 · 16 comments
Assignees
Labels
outreachy may2024 Papers identified for Outreachy applicants reviewed second contribution curation will present challenges, better after you have some curation experience

Comments

@SvetlanaUP
Copy link
Collaborator

Different Characteristics in Gut Microbiome between Advanced Adenoma Patients and Colorectal Cancer Patients by Metagenomic Analysis – Shuwen Han – Microbiology Spectrum
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/spectrum.01593-22

@SvetlanaUP SvetlanaUP added second contribution curation will present challenges, better after you have some curation experience paper to curate outreachy may2024 Papers identified for Outreachy applicants labels Mar 6, 2024
@imalovee
Copy link

imalovee commented Mar 6, 2024

Hello please @SvetlanaUP
the previous paper I was assigned which was already halfway worked on by an older intern has a completely different experimental procedures carried out in it which is highly distinct from the questions that we need to respond to...it uses different tests and methods..I can assume the other other intern left it half way because of the same issue.
Please can I be assigned to this paper thank you.

@allieniola1
Copy link

Hello @SvetlanaUP . I would love to curate this article. Thank you.

@AdegboyeRukayat
Copy link

AdegboyeRukayat commented Mar 7, 2024

@SvetlanaUP please may I be assigned to this paper to be curated?

@allieniola1
Copy link

allieniola1 commented Mar 7, 2024 via email

@Iphenn
Copy link

Iphenn commented Mar 7, 2024

Hello @SvetlanaUP,
I would love to curate this article.
Thank you

@SvetlanaUP
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Assigned to @imalovee

@imalovee
Copy link

imalovee commented Mar 7, 2024

Thank you @SvetlanaUP

@imalovee
Copy link

imalovee commented Mar 7, 2024

Hello Mentors @SvetlanaUP @Omabekee I am through with my second task of curating this paper, here is the link: https://bugsigdb.org/Study_907
Thank you.

@SvetlanaUP SvetlanaUP added the needs review apply this label when the bugsigdb study is ready for review label Mar 7, 2024
@imalovee
Copy link

imalovee commented Mar 8, 2024

@Scholarpat, @MyleeeA, @BarakatAA here is my paper..thank you

@BarakatAA
Copy link

Alright Ima

@imalovee
Copy link

imalovee commented Mar 8, 2024

hello @kwennB thank you for going through my paper, I have noted your observations.

@MyleeeA
Copy link

MyleeeA commented Mar 8, 2024

@imalovee 👍

@kwennB
Copy link

kwennB commented Mar 8, 2024

You are welcome @imalovee thank you so much for doing the same as well.

@Peacesandy Peacesandy self-assigned this Mar 14, 2024
@Peacesandy
Copy link
Collaborator

This is a great second curation attempt @imalovee. Here are some of the errors you made.

  1. The sequencing detail was not correctly identified, you left it blank. In the paper, the sequencing type used is WMS - metagenomic sequencing, the study used metagenomic analysis.
  2. No matched on factor was mentioned in the study.
  3. The differential abundance was gotten from fig 2G and 2H. All signatures were not entered you omitted a lot of signatures.
  4. Abundance direction is incorrect.
  5. The signatures you entered as increased and decreased abundance in colorectal cancer are incorrect.

CURATION RESULTS

  1. All elements marked "Needs review" (none "Incomplete") (1 point): 1
  2. Correct study design (1 point): 1
  3. Entered all relevant experiments and no irrelevant experiments (1 point): 1
  4. Body site correctly identified (i.e. does not include multiple sites) (1 point): 1
  5. Condition entered according to contrast (correct EFO ontology) (1 point): 1
  6. Contrast groups correctly identified (1 point): 1
  7. Groups correctly labeled as 1 and 0 (1=cases, 0=controls) (1 point): 1
  8. Antibiotic exclusion correctly identified (1 point): 1
  9. Correctly identified sequencing details (2 points): 0
  10. Identified correct statistical test (1 point): 1
  11. Identified MHT correction (1 point): 1
  12. Correctly recorded matched on factors (1 point): 0
  13. Entered correct number of statistical tests per experiment (1 point): 1
  14. All diversity measures identified (1 point): 1
  15. Diversity results correctly entered as increased/decreased/unchanged (1 point): 1
  16. All signature sources correctly identified (-1 for each error) (2 points): 1
  17. Abundance direction correctly selected (1 point): 0
  18. Members of Signatures identified correctly (2 points): 0
  19. Correct use of NCBI taxonomy (2 points): 1

Total (maximum 23 points): 15

@SvetlanaUP https://bugsigdb.org/Study_907 Reviewed ✅

@SvetlanaUP SvetlanaUP added reviewed and removed paper to curate assigned needs review apply this label when the bugsigdb study is ready for review labels Mar 18, 2024
@imalovee
Copy link

Oops!!. This is an awesome review, to be honest. I am better informed now, though I lowkey wish it came before my second paper but it's all fine still. Pumped and ready to nail the next curation.
Thank you for the opportunity @Peacesandy and @SvetlanaUP

@Peacesandy
Copy link
Collaborator

Glad you found it helpful

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
outreachy may2024 Papers identified for Outreachy applicants reviewed second contribution curation will present challenges, better after you have some curation experience
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants