Establishing What Constitutes a Healthy Human Gut Microbiome: State of the Science, Regulatory Considerations, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On December 17, 2018, the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI North America) convened a workshop "Can We Begin to Define a Healthy Gut Microbiome Through Quantifiable Characteristics?" with >40 invited academic, government, and industry experts in Washington, DC. The workshop objectives were to 1) develop a collective expert assessment of the state of the evidence on the human gut microbiome and associated human health benefits, 2) see if there was sufficient evidence to establish measurable gut microbiome characteristics that could serve as indicators of "health," 3) identify short- and long-term research needs to fully characterize healthy gut microbiome-host relationships, and 4) publish the findings. Conclusions were as follows: 1) mechanistic links of specific changes in gut microbiome structure with function or markers of human health are not yet established; 2) it is not established if dysbiosis is a cause, consequence, or both of changes in human gut epithelial function and disease; 3) microbiome communities are highly individualized, show a high degree of interindividual variation to perturbation, and tend to be stable over years; 4) the complexity of microbiome-host interactions requires a comprehensive, multidisciplinary research agenda to elucidate relationships between gut microbiome and host health; 5) biomarkers and/or surrogate indicators of host function and pathogenic processes based on the microbiome need to be determined and validated, along with normal ranges, using approaches similar to those used to establish biomarkers and/or surrogate indicators based on host metabolic phenotypes; 6) future studies measuring responses to an exposure or intervention need to combine validated microbiome-related biomarkers and/or surrogate indicators with multiomics characterization of the microbiome; and 7) because static genetic sampling misses important short- and long-term microbiome-related dynamic changes to host health, future studies must be powered to account for inter- and intraindividual variation and should use repeated measures within individuals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".