Interactions between Obesity Status and Dietary Intake of Monounsaturated and Polyunsaturated Oils on Human Gut Microbiome Profiles in the Canola Oil Multicenter Intervention Trial (COMIT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term dietary fatty acid intake is believed to induce changes in the human gut microbiome which might be associated with human health or obesity status; however, considerable debate remains regarding the most favorable ratios of fatty acids to optimize these processes. The objective of this sub-study of a double-blinded randomized crossover clinical study, the canola oil multi-center intervention trial (COMIT), was to investigate effects of five different novel oil blends fed for 30 days each on the intestinal microbiota in 25 volunteers with risk of metabolic syndrome. The 60 g treatments included three MUFA-rich diets: 1) conventional canola oil (Canola); 2) DHA-enriched high oleic canola oil (CanolaDHA); 3) high oleic canola oil (CanolaOleic); and two PUFA-rich diets: 4) a blend of corn/safflower oil (25:75) (CornSaff); and 5) a blend of flax/safflower oil (60:40) (FlaxSaff). Stool samples were collected at the end of each period. DNA was extracted and amplified for pyrosequencing. A total of 17 phyla and 187 genera were identified. While five novel oil treatments failed to alter bacterial phyla composition, obese participants produced a higher proportion of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes than overweight or normal weight groups (P = 0.01). Similarly at the genus level, overall bacterial distribution was highly associated with subjects’ body mass index (BMI). Treatment effects were observed between MUFA- and PUFA-rich diets, with the three MUFA diets elevating Parabacteroides, Prevotella, Turicibacter, and Enterobacteriaceae (F)’s populations, while the two PUFA-rich diets favored the abundance of Isobaculum. High MUFA content feedings also resulted in an increase of Parabacteroides and a decrease of Isobaculum in obese, but not overweight subjects. Data suggest that BMI is a predominant factor in characterization of human gut microbiota profiles, and that MUFA-rich and PUFA-rich diets impact the composition of gut microbiota at lower taxonomical levels mainly in obese subjects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".