Consensus Scoring Meta Analysis

Consensus Scoring via Vote-Counting Meta-Analysis

Summary

Qualitative meta-analysis method that assigns directional votes (+1 for up-regulation, −1 for down-regulation, 0 for no trend) to each metabolite across multiple studies and sums them to produce a consensus measure of compound behaviour. This approach is designed for metabolomics datasets where standard deviations or raw effect sizes are unavailable but trend direction and study counts are known.

When to use

When you have harmonized metabolite data from multiple studies with identifier, fold-change direction, and trend classification columns available, but lack standard deviations or variance estimates needed for quantitative meta-analysis. Use vote-counting when you need a simple, transparent qualitative consensus measure that combines trend directionality and study agreement without assuming normal distributions or requiring effect size calculations.

When NOT to use

• Input data already includes standard deviations, confidence intervals, or sufficient sample-level statistics to perform quantitative meta-analysis (use compute_amanida with mode='quan' instead).
• Trend direction is not clearly defined or is ambiguous across studies (vote-counting requires unambiguous +1/−1/0 classification per study).
• Only a single study is available; vote-counting gains consensus power from multiple reports and is not meaningful for individual studies.

Inputs

• Harmonized metabolite dataset (CSV, XLS/XLSX, or TXT) with columns: compound identifier, trend/behaviour label (up-regulated, down-regulated, or no trend), and bibliographic reference
• Study count (N) for each compound-study pair (implicit in dataset structure)
• Fold-change values (optional; used to infer trend if behaviour label absent)

Outputs

• Vote-counting results table (S4 object slot @vote) with columns: compound identifier, total vote score, count of +1 votes, count of −1 votes, count of 0 votes
• Vote plot (bar chart) showing vote distribution across compounds
• Explore plot (bar chart with trend breakdown) showing reports divided by trend direction and total vote-counting
• Optional: Enhanced results table with PubChem ID, Molecular Formula, Molecular Weight, SMILES, InChIKey, KEGG, ChEBI, HMDB, Drugbank identifiers (if comp.inf=T)

How to apply

Load the harmonized metabolite dataset (with columns: identifier, trend/behaviour label, and reference) using amanida_read with mode='qual'. For each compound across all studies, assign votes: +1 for up-regulation (positive trend or fold-change > 1), −1 for down-regulation (negative trend or fold-change < 1), and 0 for no significant trend. Sum the votes for each compound across all studies to produce a final vote count. Generate a vote-counting table with compound identifier, total vote score, and the distribution of individual votes (+1, −1, 0 counts). Restrict visualizations to the top compounds (≤30 for vote_plot, ≤25 for explore_plot) for readability. Optionally retrieve compound descriptors from PubChem using webchem to cross-validate identifiers and detect duplicates before voting.

Related tools

• amanida (R package that implements vote-counting via amanida_vote() function and integrates vote-counting with quantitative meta-analysis in compute_amanida(); provides amanida_read() for data import, check_names() for ID harmonization, and vote_plot()/explore_plot() for visualization.) — https://github.com/mariallr/amanida
• webchem (R package used by amanida to retrieve PubChem IDs from chemical identifiers (InChI, InChIKey, SMILES, names) for compound ID harmonization before vote-counting.)
• PubChem (Public chemical database queried via webchem to standardize compound identifiers and retrieve molecular descriptors (SMILES, InChIKey, KEGG, ChEBI, HMDB, Drugbank) for validation and cross-referencing.)
• R (Programming environment for executing amanida functions and custom vote-counting workflows.)

Examples

coln = c("Compound Name", "Behaviour", "References"); data_votes <- amanida_read("dataset.csv", mode = "qual", coln, separator = ","); vote_result <- amanida_vote(data_votes); vote_plot(vote_result)

Evaluation signals

• Vote counts for each compound sum to the total number of studies reporting that compound (invariant: sum of +1, −1, and 0 votes = number of reports).
• Vote scores are symmetric around zero (e.g., −3 to +3 for 3 studies); total vote always equals number of reports or lies within [−N, +N] range where N = number of studies.
• All input compounds appear in the output vote-counting table with valid vote assignments; no compounds are dropped without explicit logging.
• Vote plot and explore plot output contain no more than 30 and 25 compounds respectively; verify readability threshold is applied.
• If comp.inf=T is used, all returned compounds include valid PubChem IDs and molecular descriptors; no missing or empty descriptor fields in final table.

Limitations

• Vote-counting assigns equal weight to each study regardless of sample size (N); for studies with very different N values, consider using quantitative meta-analysis (weighted Fisher's method) instead to incorporate study size.
• Vote-counting is sensitive to the number of studies: with only 2–3 studies, vote scores (e.g., +1, −1) are coarse and may not distinguish subtle disagreement from strong consensus; more studies increase resolution.
• Missing data is ignored during import, potentially biasing vote counts if missingness is not random (e.g., non-significant results may be under-reported).
• Vote-counting does not account for statistical significance of individual study results; a weakly significant up-regulation and a strongly significant up-regulation both contribute +1.
• Negative fold-change values are transformed to positive (1/value) for computational convenience, but this transformation may obscure the magnitude of very small fold-changes; ensure fold-changes are pre-processed and meaningful before voting.

Evidence

• [intro] votes are +1 for up-regulation, -1 for down-regulation and 0 if no trend: "votes are +1 for up-regulation, -1 for down-regulation and 0 if no trend"
• [other] Sum votes across all studies for each compound to produce final vote counts: "Sum votes across all studies for each compound to produce final vote counts"
• [intro] amanida computes qualitative meta-analysis performing vote-counting for compounds, including the option of only using identifier and trend labels: "Amanida also computes qualitative meta-analysis performing a vote-counting for compounds, including the option of only using identifier and trend labels"
• [intro] Vote plot output is restricted to 30 compounds for readability; Explore plot output is restricted to 25 compounds for readability: "output is restricted to 30 compounds to facilitate the readability"
• [readme] For qualitative analysis the check_names can be also used, following the same procedure explained in Section 2: "For qualitative analysis the check_names can be also used, following the same procedure"
• [readme] Compound vote-counting: votes are +1 for up-regulation, -1 for down-regulation and 0 if no trend. The total votes are divided by the number of reports.: "Compound vote-counting: votes are +1 for up-regulation, -1 for down-regulation and 0 if no trend"
• [intro] When raw data is not available to perform a meta-analysis, there are different approaches that require the standard deviation for effect size estimate calculation and weighted methods: "When raw data is not available to perform a meta-analysis, there are different approaches that can be applied but them require the standard deviation"