MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510962849 · doi:10.1128/msphere.00199-16

Extreme Dysbiosis of the Microbiome in Critical Illness

2016· article· en· W2510962849 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel McDonald, Gail Ackermann, Ludmila Khailová, Christine Baird, Daren K. Heyland, Rosemary A. Kozar, Margot Lemieux, Karrie Derenski, Judy King, Christine Vis-Kampen, Rob Knight, Paul E. Wischmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenuemSphere · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterKingston General HospitalClinical Evaluation Research UnitQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysbiosisMicrobiomeMedicineIntensive care medicineCritical illnessSepsisDiseaseCritically illImmunologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical illness is hypothesized to associate with loss of "health-promoting" commensal microbes and overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria (dysbiosis). This dysbiosis is believed to increase susceptibility to nosocomial infections, sepsis, and organ failure. A trial with prospective monitoring of the intensive care unit (ICU) patient microbiome using culture-independent techniques to confirm and characterize this dysbiosis is thus urgently needed. Characterizing ICU patient microbiome changes may provide first steps toward the development of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions using microbiome signatures. To characterize the ICU patient microbiome, we collected fecal, oral, and skin samples from 115 mixed ICU patients across four centers in the United States and Canada. Samples were collected at two time points: within 48 h of ICU admission, and at ICU discharge or on ICU day 10. Sample collection and processing were performed according to Earth Microbiome Project protocols. We applied SourceTracker to assess the source composition of ICU patient samples by using Qiita, including samples from the American Gut Project (AGP), mammalian corpse decomposition samples, childhood (Global Gut study), and house surfaces. Our results demonstrate that critical illness leads to significant and rapid dysbiosis. Many taxons significantly depleted from ICU patients versus AGP healthy controls are key "health-promoting" organisms, and overgrowth of known pathogens was frequent. Source compositions of ICU patient samples are largely uncharacteristic of the expected community type. Between time points and within a patient, the source composition changed dramatically. Our initial results show great promise for microbiome signatures as diagnostic markers and guides to therapeutic interventions in the ICU to repopulate the normal, "health-promoting" microbiome and thereby improve patient outcomes. IMPORTANCE Critical illness may be associated with the loss of normal, "health promoting" bacteria, allowing overgrowth of disease-promoting pathogenic bacteria (dysbiosis), which, in turn, makes patients susceptible to hospital-acquired infections, sepsis, and organ failure. This has significant world health implications, because sepsis is becoming a leading cause of death worldwide, and hospital-acquired infections contribute to significant illness and increased costs. Thus, a trial that monitors the ICU patient microbiome to confirm and characterize this hypothesis is urgently needed. Our study analyzed the microbiomes of 115 critically ill subjects and demonstrated rapid dysbiosis from unexpected environmental sources after ICU admission. These data may provide the first steps toward defining targeted therapies that correct potentially "illness-promoting" dysbiosis with probiotics or with targeted, multimicrobe synthetic "stool pills" that restore a healthy microbiome in the ICU setting to improve patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations422
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemSphereSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207