The gut microbiome and inflammation in obsessive‐compulsive disorder patients compared to age‐ and sex‐matched controls: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the gut microbiome profile (by way of taxon analysis and indices of β- and α-diversity) and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6[IL-6] and tumour necrosis factor-α [TNF-α]) of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) outpatients and non-psychiatric community controls. METHODS: We collected morning stool and blood samples from 21 non-depressed, medication-free OCD patients and 22 age- and sex-matched non-psychiatric community controls. Microbiota analysis was performed using Illumina sequencing of the V3 region of 16S rRNA; serum CRP samples were analysed using immunoturbidimetry and plasma IL-6/TNF-α were examined by high-sensitivity ELISA. Multiple comparisons were corrected for using the false discovery rate (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Compared to controls, the OCD group presented lower species richness/evenness (α-diversity, Inverse Simpson) and lower relative abundance of three butyrate producing genera (Oscillospira, Odoribacter and Anaerostipes). Compared to controls, mean CRP, but not IL-6 and TNF-α, was elevated OCD patients. CRP revealed moderate to strong associations with psychiatric symptomatology. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first investigation of the gut microbiome in OCD. In addition, our findings lend further support for the potential association of inflammation and OCD. These results suggest the gut microbiome may be a potential pathway of interest for future OCD research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".