MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microbes and the gut‐brain axis

2012· review· en· W1579866483 on OpenAlexafffund
Přemysl Berčík, Stephen M. Collins, Elena F. Verdú

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGut–brain axisNeuroscienceBiologyEnteric nervous systemGut floraCentral nervous systemImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 'gut-brain' or 'brain-gut axis', depending on whether we emphasize bottom-up or top-bottom pathways, is a bi-directional communication system, comprised of neural pathways, such as the enteric nervous system (ENS), vagus, sympathetic and spinal nerves, and humoral pathways, which include cytokines, hormones, and neuropeptides as signaling molecules. Recent evidence, mainly arising from animal models, supports a role of microbes as signaling components in the gut-brain axis. AIMS: The purpose of this review is to summarize our current knowledge regarding the role of microbes, including commensals, probiotics and gastrointestinal pathogens, in bottom-up pathways of communication in the gut-brain axis. Although this has clear implications for psychiatric co-morbidity in functional and inflammatory conditions of the gut, the focus of this review will be to discuss the current evidence for a role of bacteria (commensals, probiotics, and pathogens) as key modulators of gut-brain communication. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS: The strongest evidence for a role of microbes as signaling components in the gut-brain axis currently arises from animal studies and indicate that mechanisms of communication are likely to be multiple. There is need for the concepts generated in animal models to be translated to the human in the future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations400
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogastroenterology & MotilitySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207