Mesalazine (5‐aminosalicylic acid) alters faecal bacterial profiles, but not mucosal proteolytic activity in diarrhoea‐predominant irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imbalances in gut luminal bacteria may contribute to the pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). AIM: To explore select bacteriological and anti-inflammatory effects of mesalazine (mesalamine; 5-aminosalicylic acid or 5ASA) and their relation to potential therapeutic effects in IBS. METHODS: Prospective pilot study of 12 women with diarrhoea-predominant IBS. Patients received oral mesalazine (1.5 g b.d.) for 4 weeks followed by a 4-week washout phase. Molecular profiling of stool bacterial communities and IBS symptoms were assessed before, during and after mesalazine treatment. Colonic mucosal biopsies were assessed for proteolytic activity. Qualitative and quantitative effects of mesalazine on stool microbiota, mucosal proteolytic activity and IBS symptoms were assessed. RESULTS: Faecal bacteria decreased by 46% on mesalazine treatment (P = 0.014), but returned to baseline during washout. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes represented 95% of identified phylotypes, with a trend towards an increase in the proportion of Firmicutes at week 4 in symptomatic responders [median (IQR) 14% (49) increase] compared with nonresponders [median 5% (11) decrease, P = 0.088]. Rectosigmoid mucosal proteolytic activity did not change between baseline and treatment [median 23.2 (17.9) vs. 19.5 (46.7) mU activity/mg tissue, P = 0.433]. Eight of 12 (67%) patients responded favourably to mesalazine based on a global relief questionnaire, with significant decreases in days with discomfort and increases in bowel movement satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine treatment is associated with a decrease in faecal bacteria abundance and rebalancing of the major constituents of the microbiota. Further study of the bacteriological and anti-inflammatory properties of mesalazine in IBS is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".