Can the microbiota predict response to systemic cancer therapy, surgical outcomes, and survival? The answer is in the gut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The gut microbiota seems to play a key role in tumorigenesis, across various hallmarks of cancer. Recent evidence suggests its potential use as a biomarker predicting drug response and adding prognostic information, generally in the context of immuno-oncology. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we focus on the modulating effects of gut microbiota dysbiosis on various anticancer molecules used in practice, including cytotoxic and immune-modulating agents, primarily immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Pubmed/Medline-based literature search was conducted to find potential original studies that discuss gut microbiota as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for cancer therapy. We also looked at the US ClinicalTrials.gov website to find additional studies particularly ongoing human clinical trials. EXPERT COMMENTARY: were associated with resistant disease and poorer outcomes. Gut microbiota was also found to be associated with surgical outcomes and seems to play a significant role in anastomotic leak (ATL) after surgery mainly by collagen breakdown. However, this research field is just at the beginning and the current findings are not yet ready to change clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".