Author: Michael Agronah and Benjamin Bolker
Date: 2026-06-06

# Power and Sample Size Estimation for Microbiome Analysis

#### Michael Agronah and Benjamin Bolker

#### 2026-06-06

# 1 Package Description and Functionalities

`power.nb` is a package developed for estimating statistical power and required sample size in differential abundance microbiome studies using negative binomial models. The package includes tools for simulation-based power analysis and sample size estimation using generalized additive models (GAMs), and visualization utilities for exploring the relationship between power, effect size, abundance, and sample size.

`power.nb` presents two novel microbiome data simulations frameworks: the Mixture of Gaussians (MixGaussSim) and the Reduced Rank (RRSim) simulation approaches. MixGaussSim models the distribution of mean abundance of taxa and the distribution of fold change (as a function of mean abundance of taxa) by finite Mixture of Gaussian distributions. Microbiome count data is then simulated from a negative binomial distribution. Detailed description of the MixGaussSim method is presented in the paper “Investigating statistical power of differential abundance studies” (Agronah and Bolker 2025).

RRSim (this simulation method is still under development and some functions in RRSim are yet to tested), on the other hand models the mean abundance of all taxa jointly with a mixed-effects model while accounting for correlations among taxa within subjects and zero inflation in microbiome data. Given the high dimensionality of microbiome data (usually having hundreds or thousands of taxa), modelling correlations between taxa requires estimating thousands or even millions of parameters for the correlation matrix. RRSim uses the reduced rank functionality implemented in the `glmmTMB` (Magnusson et al. 2017) packages to reduce the number of parameter estimates required of the variance-correlation matrix. Details of this method is presented in the thesis “A Novel Approach for Simulation-Based Power Estimation and Joint Modeling of Microbiome Counts” (Agronah 2025)

# 2 Installation

Install the package from GitHub using `devtools`:

    install.packages("devtools")
    devtools::install_github("magronah/power.nb")

# 3 Simulating microbiome data

Since the goal of differential abundance studies is to identify taxa that differ significantly between groups, statistical power must be estimated at the level of individual taxa. Because of the complexity of microbiome data, analytical approaches based on theoretical distributions of test statistics (e.g., non-central t or chi-squared distributions) are not feasible (Arnold et al. 2011). Therefore, power estimation typically relies on simulation-based methods that can mimic the characteristics of real microbiome data.

Statistical power for a given taxon depends on both its mean abundance and effect size (defined in this package as fold changes) (Agronah and Bolker 2025). Thus, estimating the distributions of mean abundance and fold change of taxa explicitly will offer great benefit for estimation of statistical power for individual taxon. We use the MixGaussSim simulation approach to simulate microbiome data for power calculation due to its flexibility in modelling the distributions of taxa mean abundances and effect sizes explicitly as as well as their relationship.

## 3.1 Two ways to obtain parameters for data simulation using MixGaussSim

There are one of two ways to obtain the parameters of the MixGaussSim method for data simulation. Users can:

1. pre-specify a set of parameters: To help users decide on plausible parameter values, we have run MixGaussSim on some of the microbiome datasets used in the paper “Microbiome differential abundance methods produce different results across 38 datasets” (Nearing et al. 2022) and presented the parameter estimates obtained from each of these datasets (see Appendix for the parameter estimates from these datasets ).

2. estimate parameters from an existing dataset: Secondly, users can also obtain estimates directly from fitting the model implemented in MixGaussSim to existing datasets. The following steps outlines the process for estimating parameters from an existing dataset.

## 3.2 Dataset

We use a subset of the Obesity dataset, one of the datasets analyzed in (Nearing et al. 2022). The full dataset contains 52 samples and 1203 taxa.

    ##Load libraries
    library(tidyverse)
    library(dplyr)
    library(power.nb)
    library(patchwork)
    library(rlist)
    library(latex2exp)

    data_path =  system.file("pkgdata", package = "power.nb")
    ##Read count data and metadata
    data <- read.table(
      file.path(data_path, "ob_ross_ASVs_table.tsv"),
      header = TRUE, sep = "\t",
      check.names = FALSE, comment.char = "",
      row.names = 1
    )

    metadata <- read.table(
      file.path(data_path, "ob_ross_metadata.tsv"),
      header = TRUE, sep = "\t",
      check.names = FALSE, comment.char = ""
    )

    metadata <- metadata %>%
      setNames(c("SampleID", "Groups"))

    dim(data); dim(metadata)

    ## [1] 1203   52

    ## [1] 52  2

    head(data,2); head(metadata,2)

## 3.3 Pre-filtering low abundant taxa

Low abundant tax exhibit high variability, posing challenges in detecting significant differences between groups (Love, Huber, and Anders 2014). Pre-filtering steps, as is routinely done in differential abundance analysis, is used to filter out these low abundant taxa. We filter out taxa with less that 10 count in less that 5 samples.

    filter_data  =  filter_low_count(countdata     =  data,
                                    metadata       =  metadata,
                                    abund_thresh   =  3,
                                    sample_thresh  =  2,
                                    sample_colname =  "SampleID",
                                    group_colname  =  "Groups")

    dim(filter_data)

    ## [1] 707  52

## 3.4 Fold change and Dispersion Estimation

We estimate fold change for each taxon and dispersion parameters using the negative binomial model implemented in the `DESeq2` package (Love, Huber, and Anders 2014). The negative binomial model is widely used in both microbiome and RNA-seq analyses and is implemented in the `NBZIMM` (Yi 2020) and `edgeR` R packages (Robinson, McCarthy, and Smyth 2010). The model implemented in the `DESeq2` package is described as follows:

Let \(K_{ij}\) represent the observed count for the \(i^{\text{th}}\) taxon in the \(j^{\text{th}}\) sample. The model assumes that
\[K_{ij} \sim \text{NB}(\mu_{ij}, \alpha_{ij}),\] where the mean is defined as \(\mu_{ij} = s_j q_{ij}\), and \(s_j\) is the normalization factor for sample \(j\). The expected abundance prior to normalization, \(q_{ij}\), is modeled as
\[\log q_{ij} = \sum_r x_{jr} \beta_{ir},\] with \(x_{jr}\) denoting the covariates and \(\beta_{ir}\) the associated coefficients. The dispersion parameter is assumed constant across samples for each taxon, such that \(\alpha_{ij} = \alpha_i\). This formulation links the variance and mean through
\[\mathrm{Var}(K_{ij}) = \mu_i + \alpha_i \mu_i^2.\]

Estimation of the regression coefficients \(\hat{\beta}_{ir}\) and dispersion parameters \(\hat{\alpha}_i\) was carried out using the empirical Bayes shrinkage procedures implemented in the `DESeq2` package Anders and Huber (2010).

    unique(metadata$Groups)

    ## [1] "OB" "H"

    foldchange_est <- deseqfun(countdata      =   filter_data,
                               metadata       =   metadata,
                               alpha_level    =   0.1,
                               ref_name       =  "H",
                               group_colname  =  "Groups",
                               sample_colname =  "SampleID")

    logfoldchange =  foldchange_est$deseq_estimate$log2FoldChange

    head(logfoldchange)

    ## [1]  0.3472147294 -0.8840585417  0.2167456449 -0.5366652659  0.0008622315
    ## [6] -0.8221867027

## 3.5 Modeling the distribution of log mean counts

We modelled the log mean abundance (defined as the logarithm of the arithmetic mean abundance across both control and treatment groups) as a finite mixture of Gaussian distributions. To determine the optimal number of mixture components, denoted by \(k\), we employed a parametric bootstrap approach to sequentially compare models with \(k\) and \(k+1\) components.

Let the observed data be denoted by \(\mathbf{y} = (y_1, y_2, \dots, y_n)\), where each \(y_i\) represents the log mean abundance for the \(i^{\text{th}}\) taxon. The mixture model with \(k\) components is given by

\[f_k(y_i \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_k) = \sum_{j=1}^{k} \pi_{j,k} \, \phi(y_i \mid \mu_{j,k}, \sigma_{j,k}^2),\]

where \(\pi_{j,k}\) are the mixing proportions satisfying \(\sum_{j=1}^{k} \pi_{j,k} = 1\), and \(\phi(\cdot \mid \mu, \sigma^2)\) denotes the normal density with mean \(\mu\) and variance \(\sigma^2\).

To test whether adding an additional component improves model fit, we formulated the hypotheses as:

\[ \begin{cases} H_0: \mathbf{y} \sim f_k(y_i \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_k) & \textrm{(the data follow a $k$-component mixture model)} \\ H_a: \mathbf{y} \sim f_{k+1}(y_i \mid \boldsymbol{\theta}_{k+1}) & \textrm{(the data follow a $(k+1)$-component mixture model)} \end{cases}\] {=latex}’

The test statistic is the likelihood ratio statistic:

’ \[\Lambda = 2 \left[ \ell_{k+1}(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{k+1}) - \ell_{k}(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{k}) \right],\] where \(\ell_{k}(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{k})\) and \(\ell_{k+1}(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{k+1})\) are the maximized log-likelihoods under the \(k\)- and \((k+1)\)-component models, respectively. {=latex}’

To approximate the null distribution of \(\Lambda\), we performed a parametric bootstrap using \(B = 100\) bootstrap samples generated under \(H_0\). For each bootstrap replicate \(b = 1, \dots, B\), data were simulated from the fitted \(k\)-component model, and both the null and alternative models were re-fitted to obtain \(\Lambda^{(b)}\). The empirical \(p\)-value is computed as

\[p = \frac{1}{B} \sum_{b=1}^{B} I\left( \Lambda^{(b)} \ge \Lambda_{\text{obs}} \right),\] where \(\Lambda_{\text{obs}}\) is the observed likelihood ratio statistic.

If \(p < 0.05\), the null hypothesis \(H_0\) is rejected in favor of the \((k+1)\)-component model. Testing proceeds sequentially for \(k = 1, 2, \dots, 5\) until the \(p\)-value exceeds the \(5\%\) significance threshold, at which point the \(k\)-component model from the last accepted test is selected as the optimal mixture size (Benaglia et al. 2010).

    ### function to mute printing out messages about
    ### update on the number of iterations

    quiet <- function(expr) {
      out <- suppressWarnings(suppressMessages(
        capture.output(res <- eval.parent(substitute(expr)))
      ))
      res}

    ### Path to other files used in this vignette
    extdata_path =  system.file("extdata", package = "power.nb")

     logmean    =  log(rowMeans(filter_data))
     logmeanFit <- readRDS(file.path(extdata_path, "logmeanFit.rds"))

    ## The code below was used to generate the precomputed
    ## `logmeanFit.rds` object. The saved result is loaded
    ## throughout this vignette to reduce vignette build times.

    # logmeanFit =   quiet(logmean_fit(logmean, sig = 0.05,
    #                                  max.comp = 4, max.boot = 100))

## 3.6 Modelling the distribution of log fold change estimates

We also modelled log fold change of taxa as a finite mixture of Gaussian distributions. Fold change is typically related to mean abundance (Love, Huber, and Anders 2014); therefore, we expressed the mean and standard deviation parameters of the individual Gaussian components as functions of log mean abundance. Detailed description of the model fitted to log fold changes is presented in the paper “Investigating statistical power of differential abundance studies” (Agronah and Bolker 2025).

    logfoldchangeFit <- readRDS(file.path(extdata_path, "logfoldchangeFit.rds"))

    logfoldchangeFit

    ## $par
    ##  logitprob_1     mu_int_1     mu_int_2   mu_slope_1   mu_slope_2   logsd_.1_1
    ##  1.688126642 -1.054068569  0.115132772 -0.611302399  0.007166436 -0.554719649
    ##   logsd_.1_2   logsd_.L_1   logsd_.L_2
    ## -0.512670667  0.415862601  0.233292472
    ##
    ## $np
    ## [1] 2
    ##
    ## $sd_ord
    ## [1] 1
    ##
    ## $aic
    ## [1] 1609.076

    ## The code below was used to generate the precomputed
    ## `logfoldchangeFit.rds` object. The saved result is loaded
    ## throughout this vignette to reduce vignette build times.

    # logfoldchangeFit <- quiet(logfoldchange_fit(logmean,
    #                                             logfoldchange,
    #                                             ncore = 1,
    #                                             max_sd_ord = 2,
    #                                             max_np = 5,
    #                                             minval = -5,
    #                                             maxval = 5,
    #                                             itermax = 100,
    #                                             NP = 800,
    #                                             seed = 100))

## 3.7 Modelling the dispersion estimates

Because dispersion tends to depend on mean count abundance with rarer taxa showing greater variability we modeled the dispersion as a nonlinear function of the mean, following the approach implemented in `DESeq2`. The nonlinear function is defined by

\[ d = c_0 + \frac{c_1}{m} \]

where \(d\) and \(m\) denote the scaled dispersion and mean abundance respectively. The term \(c_0\) represents the asymptotic dispersion level for high abundance taxa, and \(c_1\) captures additional dispersion variability. This procedure enables estimation of dispersion values corresponding to given mean counts, facilitating their use in downstream simulations and power analyses.

    dispersion    =  foldchange_est$dispersion
    dispersionFit =  dispersion_fit(dispersion, logmean)
    dispersionFit$param

## 3.8 Simulate count microbiome data

To simulate microbiome data, we first simulate log mean counts and corresponding log fold changes. The simulated log mean counts represent overall log mean counts (i.e., log of the arithmetic mean of the counts in all of treatment and control groups). We then use the simulated log mean count to estimate corresponding dispersion values for each sample through the fitted nonlinear function described in the equation here (see section on Modelling the Distribution of Log Fold Changes). Using the simulated log mean counts and fold changes, we now compute the group specific mean counts (i.e., mean counts of taxa for control group and mean count of taxa for treatment group). We then simulate microbiome count data from the negative binomial distribution using the group specific mean counts and the estimated dispersion values.

### 3.8.1 Simulate log mean count and log fold change

    ### Simulated log mean count and log foldchange from the fitted
    ### log mean count and log foldchange models

    logmean_param       =  logmeanFit$param
    logfoldchange_param =  logfoldchangeFit

    notu  = dim(filter_data)[1]
    notu

    ## [1] 707

    logmean_sim  =  logmean_sim_fun(logmean_param, notu)

    logfoldchange_sim  =  logfoldchange_sim_fun(logmean_sim = logmean_sim,
                                                logfoldchange_param =
                                                logfoldchange_param,
                                                max_lfc  = 15,
                                                max_iter = 30000)

    head(logfoldchange_sim)

    ## [1]  0.16326156  0.08548872 -0.09128340  0.28545329  0.21357079  1.09021814

### 3.8.2 Simulate counts from the negative binomial distribution

Estimating the dispersion values is done internally within the `countdata_sim_fun` function.

    nsim = 4
    ntreat = sum(metadata$Groups == "OB")
    ncont  = sum(metadata$Groups == "H")
    dispersion_param  =  dispersionFit$param

    countdata_sims = countdata_sim_fun(logmean_param,
                                       logfoldchange_param,
                                       dispersion_param,
                                       nsamp_per_group = NULL,
                                       ncont = ncont,
                                       ntreat = ntreat,
                                       notu,
                                       nsim = nsim,
                                       disp_scale = 0.7,
                                       max_lfc = 15,
                                       maxlfc_iter = 1000,
                                       seed = 121)

    ## mixtools package, version 2.0.0.1, Released 2022-12-04
    ## This package is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-0518772 and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative: Essential Open Source Software for Science (Grant No. 2020-255193).

    dim(countdata_sims$treat_countdata_list$sim_1)

    ## [1] 707  31

    dim(countdata_sims$control_countdata_list$sim_1)

    ## [1] 707  21

    dim(countdata_sims$countdata_list$sim_1)

    ## [1] 707  52

    dim(countdata_sims$metadata_list$sim_1)

    ## [1] 52  2

### 3.8.3 Comparing the distributions between simulated count d of mean count and fold change from simulation with actual data

We compare the following comparisons between our simulation and the actual dataset

- we come distribution of variances of counts of taxa and

- the means of taxa from out simulation with those of the actual dataset

    compare_dataset <- function(countdata_sim_list,countdata_obs,method = c("var", "mean")){

      # Check if method is either "var" or "mean"
      if (!(method %in% c("var", "mean"))) {
        stop("Invalid method. Please choose either 'var' or 'mean'.")
      }

      # Calculate variance or mean based on the chosen method
      if (method == "var") {
        calc_func <- stats::var
        xlab_text <- "$\\log$(variance of taxa)"
      } else {
        calc_func <- mean
        xlab_text <- "$\\log$(mean of taxa)"
      }

      # Create a list combining simulation data and observed data
      dlist <- list.append(countdata_sim_list, obs_filt = countdata_obs)

      # Calculate variance or mean for each dataset in the list
      vars <- dlist |> purrr::map(~ apply(., 1, calc_func)) |>
        purrr::map_dfr(~ tibble(var = .), .id = "type")

      # Separate observed and simulated data
      vars_obs <- vars[vars$type == "obs_filt", ]
      vars_sim <- vars[vars$type != "obs_filt", ]

      # Create ggplot for visualization
      p <- ggplot(vars_sim, aes(x = log(var), colour = type)) +
        geom_density(lwd = 1.5) +
        geom_density(data = vars_obs, aes(x = log(var)),
                     colour = "black", linetype = "dashed", lwd = 1.5) +
        xlab(TeX(xlab_text)) + theme_bw()

      return(p)
    }

    countdata_sim_list =  countdata_sims$countdata_list[1]
    countdata_obs      =  filter_data
    p11 = compare_dataset(countdata_sim_list,countdata_obs,method = "mean")
    p12 = compare_dataset(countdata_sim_list,countdata_obs,method = "var")

    (p11|p12) + plot_layout(guides = "collect")

    dim(countdata_obs)

    ## [1] 707  52

# 4 Estimating Statistical Power for Individual Taxa

We estimate statistical power for a given taxon as the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis that the mean abundance in the control and treatment groups are the same for that given taxon. To estimate statistical power for various combinations of log mean abundance and log fold change, we fitted a shape-constrained generalized additive model (GAM) (Pya and Wood 2015). The event that a given taxon is significantly different between groups is treated as a Bernoulli trial.

Define the logistic function as \[\text{Logist}(x) = \left(1 + \exp(-x)\right)^{-1}\].

The model predicting statistical power as a function of log fold change and log mean abundance is given by:

\[\begin{align} y &\sim \text{Bernoulli}(p_i) \\ p_i &= \text{Logist}(x) \\ \eta &= \beta_0 + f_1(x_1, x_2), \end{align}\]

where:

- \(y\) is a binary value (1 if the p-value was below the critical threshold, and 0 otherwise);
- \(p_i\) is the estimated statistical power for taxon \(i\);
- \(\beta_0\) is the intercept;
- The predictors \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) represent log mean abundance and log fold change, respectively;
- \(f_1(\cdot)\) is a two-dimensional smoothing surface, generated using a tensor product smooth of log mean abundance and log fold change.

Power and fold change are positively correlated. Additionally, effect sizes of highly abundant taxa are more likely to be detected—hence having higher power—than those of rare taxa. To account for these relationships, the function \(f_1\) was constrained to be a monotonically increasing function of both log mean abundance and log fold change.

We used the `DESeq2` package to compute p-values for each taxon, applying the Benjamini and Hochberg method for false discovery rate (FDR) correction. We used the default critical p-value threshold of 0.1 in the `DESeq2` package.

The follow steps outlines the power estimation procedure:

## 4.1 Estimate p-values associated with simulated fold changes

To train the GAM on a sufficiently large sample size, we generate multiple microbiome count datasets following the procedure described in the section Simulate count microbiome data. We then estimate p-values associated with the simulated fold changes using the `DESeq2` package.

    countdata_list  =   countdata_sims$countdata_list
    metadata_list   =   countdata_sims$metadata_list
    desq_est   =   quiet(deseq_fun_est(metadata_list =  metadata_list,
                                countdata_list =  countdata_list,
                                alpha_level    =  0.1,
                                group_colname  = "Groups",
                                sample_colname = "Samples",
                                num_cores      =  1,
                                ref_name       = "control"))

    deseq_est_list     =    lapply(desq_est, function(x){x$deseq_estimate})
    names(desq_est$sim_1)

    ## [1] "logfoldchange"    "dispersion"       "deseq_estimate"   "normalised_count"
    ## [5] "deseq_object"     "metadata"         "countdata"

## 4.2 Fitting the Generalized Additive Model (GAM)

We now fit the GAM for predicting statistical power for individual taxon.

    true_lmean_list       =    countdata_sims$logmean_list
    true_lfoldchange_list =    countdata_sims$logfoldchange_list

    gamFit <- gam_fit(deseq_est_list,
                      true_lfoldchange_list,
                      true_lmean_list,
                      grid_len = 50,
                      alpha_level=0.1)

    range(true_lfoldchange_list)

    ## [1] -8.952604  7.643726

    range(true_lmean_list)

    ## [1] -2.383209  6.458936

## 4.3 Contour plot showing power for various combinations of mean abundance and fold change

    cont_breaks     =  seq(0,1,0.1)
    combined_data   =  gamFit$combined_data
    power_estimate  =  gamFit$power_estimate

    contour_plot <- contour_plot_fun(combined_data,
                                     power_estimate,
                                     cont_breaks)
    contour_plot

# 5 Sample size calculation

## 5.1 Simulate count data for various sample sizes

    nsim = 4
    nsample_vec = seq(10, 100, 20)
    countdata_sims_list  =  list()
    for(j in 1:length(nsample_vec)){
      countdata_sims_list[[j]]  =  countdata_sim_fun(logmean_param,
                                                     logfoldchange_param,
                                                     dispersion_param,
                                                     nsamp_per_group = nsample_vec[j],
                                                     ncont  = NULL,
                                                     ntreat = NULL,
                                                     notu,
                                                     nsim = nsim,
                                                     disp_scale = 0.3,
                                                     max_lfc = 15,
                                                     maxlfc_iter = 1000,
                                                     seed = 121)
    }

    names(countdata_sims_list) = paste0("sample_",nsample_vec)

## 5.2 Estimate p-values associated to fold changes for each taxa for simulated data per sample size

    desq_est_list  =  list()
    for(i in 1:length(countdata_sims_list)){

      countdata_list       =   countdata_sims_list[[i]]$countdata_list
      metadata_list        =   countdata_sims_list[[i]]$metadata_list
      desq_est_list[[i]]   =   deseq_fun_est(metadata_list =  metadata_list,
                                   countdata_list =  countdata_list,
                                   alpha_level    =  0.1,
                                   group_colname  = "Groups",
                                   sample_colname = "Samples",
                                   num_cores      =  1,
                                   ref_name       = "control")

    }
    names(desq_est_list) = paste0("sample_",nsample_vec)

## 5.3 Fit Generalized Additive Model (GAM) for power estimation

We now fit a GAM model to predict statistical power. This time, we predict GAM with covariates as mean count of taxa, fold change of taxa and group sample size. Let \(n_k\) for \(k=1,2,...,N\) denote the sample size per group corresponding to the \(k^{th}\) dataset. For a given dataset, we assume equal sample sizes across all groups. The value of \(n_k\) is constant within each dataset but varies across datasets. The GAM model is defined by

\[\begin{equation} \begin{cases} y &\sim \text{Bernoulli}(p_i) \\ p_i &= \text{Logist}(\eta) \\ \eta &= \beta_0 + f_1({x}_{1i},{x}_{2i}) + f_2({x}_{1i},n_k) + f_3({x}_{2i},n_k), \end{cases} \label{eqn2} \end{equation}\] where the functions \(f_1, f_2\) and \(f_3\) are two-dimensional smoothing surfaces with basis generated by the tensor product smooth of pairs of \(x_{1i},x_{2i}\) and \(n_k\) . \(f_1, f_2\) and \(f_3\) are constrained to be monotonically increasing functions.

    pow_ss  <- readRDS(file.path(extdata_path, "gam_fit_MultiSamples.rds"))

    ## The code below was used to generate the precomputed
    ## `gam_fit_MultiSamples.rds` object.
    ## The saved result is loaded throughout
    ## this vignette to reduce vignette build times.

    # deseq_list = lapply(desq_est_list, function(x){
    #   read_data(x, "deseq_estimate")
    # })
    #
    # pval_est_list <- lapply(deseq_list, function(sample_list) {
    #   lapply(sample_list, function(sim_df) {
    #     sim_df$padj
    #   })
    # })
    #
    #
    # logfoldchange_list  =   read_data(countdata_sims_list,"logfoldchange_list")
    # logmean_list        =   read_data(countdata_sims_list,"logmean_list")
    #
    # pow_ss <- power_fun_ss(pval_est_list,
    #                          logmean_list,
    #                          nsample_vec = nsample_vec,
    #                          logfoldchange_list,
    #                          alpha_level=0.1)

## 5.4 Estimate sample size for a given statistical power, fold change and mean abundance

For a given target power, the sample size required to detect a taxon with a given fold change and mean abundance is obtained by a root-finding technique. Let \(g(x_{1i}, x_{2i}, n_k)\) denote the estimated linear predictor from the fitted GAM. The predicted power is obtained via the logistic transformation

\[\begin{align} \hat{p}_i = \text{Logist}\big(g(x_{1i}, x_{2i}, n_k)\big). \end{align}\]

Given \({x}_{1i}, {x}_{2i}\) and a target power \(p^\ast\), the required sample size \(n_k\) is estimated by finding the root of the equation: \[\begin{align} \text{Logist}\big(g(x_{1i}, x_{2i}, n_k)\big) - p^\ast = 0. \end{align}\]

    target_power =  0.8; model  =  pow_ss$gam_mod; abs_lfc = 1.2; logmean = 4

    ss_estimate = uniroot_ss(target_power, logmean, abs_lfc, model,
                            xmin = log2(10), xmax = log2(5000),
                            maxiter = 10000,
                            max_report = 2000)

    ss_estimate

    ## $sample_size_per_group
    ## [1] 277.471
    ##
    ## $conclusion
    ## [1] "Success."
    ##
    ## $predicted_power_min_n
    ## [1] 0.004765494
    ##
    ## $predicted_power_max_n
    ## [1] 0.9882709

    target_power_vec <- seq(0.5, 0.9, 0.05) #c(0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9)
    abs_lfc_vec      <- c(0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0)
    logmean_vec      <- c(2, 4, 6)

    param_grid <- expand.grid(
      target_power = target_power_vec,
      abs_lfc = abs_lfc_vec,
      logmean = logmean_vec
    )

    param_grid$sample_size_per_group <- apply(
      param_grid,
      1,
      function(x) {
          uniroot_ss(
            target_power = as.numeric(x["target_power"]),
            logmean      = as.numeric(x["logmean"]),
            abs_lfc      = as.numeric(x["abs_lfc"]),
            model        = pow_ss$gam_mod,
            xmin         = log2(10),
            xmax         = log2(5000),
            maxiter      = 10000,
            max_report   = 2000)$sample_size_per_group
      }
    )

    head(param_grid)

    ggplot(param_grid,
           aes(x = target_power,
               y = sample_size_per_group,
               group = 1)) +
      geom_line() +
      geom_point() +
      facet_grid(
        abs_lfc ~ logmean,
        labeller = labeller(
          abs_lfc = function(x) paste0("|log(fold change)| = ", x),
          logmean = function(x) paste0("log(mean count) = ", x)
        )
      ) +
        labs(
        x = "Target Power",
        y = "Estimated Sample Size per Group",
        title = "Estimated Sample Size by Target Power"
      ) +
      theme_bw() +
      theme(
        plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0.5)
      )

# 6 Appendix

### 6.0.1 Data description and parameter estimates from actual microbiome datasets

| Log mean count | Log fold change
--- | --- | ---
Dataset | \(n_{comp}\) | \(p_1\) | \(\mu_1\) | \(\sigma_1\) |  |  |  |  | \(n_{comp}\) | \(p_2\) | \(\mu_2\) | \({f(x)}_{\sigma_2}\)
ArcticFireSoils | 4 | (0.10,0.38,0.37,0.15) | (-2.81,-1.56,0.31,3.27) | (0.45,0.80,1.35,2.39) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-3.88) | \(0.13 + 0.06x_i,\;-1.55 - 0.62x_i\) | \(-0.65 + 0.30x_i,\;0.44 + 0.46x_i\)
Blueberry | 4 | (0.37,0.22,0.29,0.12) | (-0.47,-1.45,0.83,2.54) | (0.71,0.52,1.05,1.66) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.97) | \(0.16 - 4.31x_i,\;0.01 + 0.01x_i\) | \(-1.17 + 2.07x_i,\;-1.07 + 0.13x_i\)
cdi_schubert | 3 | (0.54,0.37,0.09) | (-2.02,0.78,4.17) | (0.94,1.57,2.04) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-1.16) | \(-1.42 - 0.37x_i,\;2.61 + 0.77x_i\) | \(-0.27 + 0.54x_i,\;-0.17 + 0.23x_i\)
cdi_vincent | 2 | (0.56,0.44) | (3.06,-0.03) | (2.10,0.89) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.93) | \(1.04 - 1.14x_i,\;-0.21 - 0.09x_i\) | \(1.05 - 0.49x_i,\;0.18 + 0.13x_i\)
Chemerin | 3 | (0.56,0.02,0.42) | (-0.86,0.74,2.27) | (1.14,0.09,2.32) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.52) | \(2.95 + 3.42x_i,\;-0.02 - 0.00x_i\) | \(-1.25 - 2.24x_i,\;-1.31 + 0.07x_i\)
crc_baxter | 4 | (0.16,0.33,0.20,0.32) | (-3.13,-2.01,-0.49,2.73) | (0.55,0.76,2.46,1.21) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.65) | \(4.25 + 3.11x_i,\;-0.09 - 0.03x_i\) | \(0.34 + 1.84x_i,\;-0.39 + 0.43x_i\)
crc_zeller | 5 | (0.13,0.40,0.30,0.13,0.03) | (-2.32,-1.33,0.15,2.33,5.75) | (0.50,0.71,1.09,1.70,2.52) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (3.66) | \(0.78 + 0.88x_i,\;-0.16 - 0.02x_i\) | \(1.53 - 0.39x_i - 1.30x_i^2,\;-0.31 + 0.35x_i - 0.03x_i^2\)
edd_singh | 1 | 1 | (-0.42) | (2.39) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-1.99) | \(0.09 + 0.01x_i,\;-2.20 - 0.72x_i\) | \(0.13 + 0.28x_i,\;-0.54 + 0.16x_i\)
Exercise | 3 | (0.15,0.48,0.36) | (-1.20,0.17,2.39) | (0.50,1.10,1.97) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-4.83) | \(0.03 - 0.02x_i,\;2.27 - 2.38x_i\) | \(-1.23 + 0.05x_i,\;-1.55 + 1.39x_i\)
glass_plastic_oberbeckmann | 3 | (0.44,0.50,0.06) | (-0.08,1.91,5.71) | (0.64,1.23,1.18) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-3.83) | \(-0.07 - 0.05x_i,\;2.17 + 0.13x_i\) | \(-0.51 + 0.06x_i,\;-1.39 + 0.51x_i\)
GWMC_ASIA_NA | 4 | (0.10,0.35,0.38,0.17) | (-4.72,-3.18,-1.17,1.41) | (0.61,0.98,1.50,2.28) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.08) | \(3.69 - 0.21x_i,\;0.11 + 0.03x_i\) | \(0.26 - 1.68x_i,\;0.55 + 0.46x_i\)
GWMC_HOT_COLD | 5 | (0.14,0.35,0.37,0.00,0.14) | (-4.73,-3.16,-1.06,-0.93,1.57) | (0.69,1.55,1.05,0.07,2.28) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (3.58) | \(1.62 + 0.25x_i,\;-0.03 - 0.01x_i\) | \(0.33 + 0.36x_i,\;0.68 + 0.65x_i\)
hiv_dinh | 3 | (0.49,0.45,0.06) | (0.42,2.15,5.79) | (0.84,1.25,0.70) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-2.29) | \(0.33 + 0.11x_i,\;-1.54 - 0.68x_i\) | \(-0.36 + 0.14x_i,\;-0.93 + 0.25x_i\)
hiv_lozupone | 3 | (0.30,0.28,0.42) | (-0.12,1.30,3.80) | (0.92,0.50,1.83) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-4.86) | \(0.30 + 0.24x_i,\;-4.39 + 0.21x_i\) | \(-0.04 + 0.17x_i,\;-0.79 - 0.25x_i\)
hiv_noguerajulian | 4 | (0.09,0.46,0.25,0.19) | (-2.83,-1.71,0.21,3.64) | (0.46,0.75,1.33,2.32) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-2.44) | \(0.07 + 0.04x_i,\;-0.47 - 0.19x_i\) | \(-0.72 + 0.19x_i,\;-0.18 - 0.20x_i\)
ibd_papa | 3 | (0.06,0.49,0.45) | (0.14,1.71,4.69) | (0.69,0.57,0.98) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-1.31) | \(-0.32 + 0.11x_i,\;0.57 + 0.11x_i\) | \(0.16 + 0.06x_i,\;-1.30 + 0.48x_i\)
Ji_WTP_DS | 3 | (0.33,0.30,0.37) | (-0.68,2.61,6.67) | (0.84,2.69,1.84) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.44) | \(2.59 - 1.66x_i,\;0.10 + 0.00x_i\) | \(-1.34 - 1.83x_i,\;-0.78 + 0.04x_i\)
MALL | 3 | (0.39,0.11,0.50) | (-0.65,0.65,3.26) | (0.82,0.40,1.83) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.26) | \(-0.09 + 1.07x_i,\;0.08 + 0.05x_i\) | \(-0.22 - 1.87x_i + 1.43x_i^2,\;0.11 + 0.20x_i - 0.03x_i^2\)
ob_goodrich | 4 | (0.15,0.16,0.62,0.06) | (-3.89,-2.39,-0.17,3.31) | (0.58,1.61,0.98,2.47) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.90) | \(-0.35 - 2.37x_i,\;-0.09 - 0.02x_i\) | \(-2.92 + 1.76x_i,\;-0.71 + 0.39x_i\)
ob_ross | 2 | (0.34,0.66) | (-0.58,2.34) | (0.75,1.98) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.40) | \(0.81 + 0.42x_i,\;0.02 + 0.01x_i\) | \(-2.19 + 0.27x_i,\;-0.11 + 0.01x_i\)
ob_turnbaugh | 3 | (0.55,0.03,0.42) | (-0.98,0.14,1.22) | (0.79,0.08,1.66) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (1.60) | \(-1.24 - 0.36x_i,\;0.28 + 0.10x_i\) | \(-0.38 + 0.46x_i,\;-0.24 + 0.18x_i\)
ob_zhu | 3 | (0.57,0.01,0.42) | (-0.12,0.53,2.77) | (0.82,0.04,1.97) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-2.12) | \(-0.30 + 0.05x_i,\;1.03 + 0.47x_i\) | \(0.01 + 0.11x_i,\;-0.61 + 0.19x_i\)
ob_zupancic | 3 | (0.45,0.32,0.23) | (-1.98,-0.56,1.91) | (0.87,1.42,0.41) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-1.90) | \(-0.07 + 0.03x_i,\;1.26 + 0.18x_i\) | \(-0.04 + 0.17x_i,\;-0.74 - 0.29x_i\)
par_scheperjans | 3 | (0.39,0.32,0.28) | (-1.71,-0.31,1.34) | (0.71,1.02,1.58) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.16) | \(0.88 + 0.44x_i,\;-0.10 - 0.02x_i\) | \(-0.07 + 0.62x_i,\;-0.44 + 0.15x_i\)
sed_plastic_hoellein | 3 | (0.41,0.39,0.20) | (-0.03,1.46,3.32) | (0.65,1.05,1.67) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-4.73) | \(-0.07 - 0.00x_i,\;-0.52 + 0.41x_i\) | \(-0.42 + 0.10x_i,\;0.23 - 0.99x_i\)
sed_plastic_rosato | 3 | (0.40,0.43,0.17) | (-0.25,1.58,4.06) | (0.70,1.23,1.93) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (4.65) | \(-0.25 - 1.49x_i,\;-0.08 - 0.04x_i\) | \(0.70 + 0.67x_i,\;-1.61 + 0.19x_i\)
sw_plastic_frere | 5 | (0.06,0.25,0.33,0.27,0.08) | (-1.88,-1.04,0.19,1.93,4.08) | (0.33,0.52,0.83,1.35,2.21) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (2.68) | \(1.82 + 0.35x_i,\;-0.06 + 0.01x_i\) | \(0.43 - 0.40x_i,\;-0.54 + 0.11x_i\)
t1d_alkanani | 5 | (0.06,0.30,0.47,0.15,0.02) | (-3.06,-2.54,-1.91,-0.87,0.82) | (0.17,0.30,0.46,0.72,1.37) |  |  |  |  | 5 | (0.23,-2.85,-4.30,4.83) | \(-1.75 + 0.01x_i,\;-0.36 - 2.61x_i,\;-0.34 + 2.04x_i\) | \(3.94 + 3.15x_i,\;-1.28 - 1.36x_i,\;-3.81 - 3.44x_i\)
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | \(-0.13 - 0.93x_i,\;-0.03 - 0.02x_i\) | \(-2.31 + 3.62x_i,\;-1.12 + 0.63x_i\)
t1d_mejialeon | 2 | (0.47,0.53) | (0.73,3.57) | (0.92,1.94) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (-2.93) | \(0.25 + 0.02x_i,\;-3.32 + 0.13x_i\) | \(-0.04 + 0.06x_i,\;-0.25 + 0.35x_i\)
wood_plastic_kesy | 3 | (0.29,0.42,0.29) | (-1.16,1.16,4.65) | (0.70,1.43,2.46) |  |  |  |  | 2 | (3.96) | \(0.28 + 2.24x_i,\;-0.00 - 0.01x_i\) | \(0.12 + 0.67x_i,\;-1.31 + 0.10x_i\)

# 7 Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Jacob T. Nearing for his generosity in granting us access to the 38 microbiome datasets used in the paper “Microbiome differential abundance methods produce different results across 38 datasets” (Nearing et al. 2022). These datasets were invaluable in developing, testing, and validating this R package for power and sample size calculation in microbiome studies.

We also sincerely appreciate the following individuals for running the functions in this package on the microbiome datasets published in (Nearing et al. 2022), thereby providing users with plausible parameter values for their research work: Alim Tuguzbay, Arjya Bhattacharjee, Atiyah Sulaiman, George Vinichenko, Josh Effero, Mahdiya Adnan, Mir Akbaar Khaled, Nevin Xu, Nicole Padoun, Riya Srivastava, and Shaira Habib (University of Alberta: Alim Tuguzbay, Arjya Bhattacharjee, Atiyah Sulaiman, George Vinichenko, Josh Effero, Mahdiya Adnan, Mir Akbaar Khaled, Nevin Xu, and Shaira Habib; McMaster University: Nicole Padoun and Riya Srivastava.

# References

Agronah, Michael. 2025. “A Novel Approach for Simulation-Based Power Estimation and Joint Modeling of Microbiome Counts.” PhD thesis.
Agronah, Michael, and Benjamin Bolker. 2025. “Investigating Statistical Power of Differential Abundance Studies.” PloS One 20 (4): e0318820.
Anders, Simon, and Wolfgang Huber. 2010. “Differential Expression Analysis for Sequence Count Data.” Nature Precedings, 1.
Arnold, Benjamin F, Daniel R Hogan, John M Colford, and Alan E Hubbard. 2011. “Simulation Methods to Estimate Design Power: An Overview for Applied Research.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 11: 1–10.
Benaglia, Tatiana, Didier Chauveau, David R Hunter, and Derek S Young. 2010. “Mixtools: An R Package for Analyzing Mixture Models.” Journal of Statistical Software 32: 1–29.
Love, Michael I, Wolfgang Huber, and Simon Anders. 2014. “Moderated Estimation of Fold Change and Dispersion for RNA-Seq Data with DESeq2.” Genome Biology 15 (12): 1–21.
Magnusson, Arni, Hans Skaug, Anders Nielsen, Casper Berg, Kasper Kristensen, Martin Maechler, Koen van Bentham, Ben Bolker, Mollie Brooks, and Maintainer Mollie Brooks. 2017. “Package ‘Glmmtmb’.” R Package Version 0.2. 0 25.
Nearing, Jacob T., Gavin M. Douglas, Matilda G. Hayes, Jacquelyn MacDonald, Devika K. Desai, Nicholas Allward, Caitlin Jones, et al. 2022. “Microbiome Differential Abundance Methods Produce Different Results Across 38 Datasets.” Nature Communications 13: 342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28034-z.
Pya, Natalya, and Simon N Wood. 2015. “Shape Constrained Additive Models.” Statistics and Computing 25: 543–59.
Robinson, Mark D, Davis J McCarthy, and Gordon K Smyth. 2010. “edgeR: A Bioconductor Package for Differential Expression Analysis of Digital Gene Expression Data.” Bioinformatics 26 (1): 139–40.
Yi, N. 2020. “NBZIMM: Negative Binomial and Zero-Inflated Mixed Models.” R Package Version 1.