Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of <scp><i>Faecalibacterium prausnitzii</i></scp> alteration in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: We comprehensively carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous studies to determine the association between intestinal Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in human studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database was conducted until April 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria were studies involving patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) with abundance of F. prausnitzii. The quality of the studies was assessed by the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: A total of 1669 subjects (427 CD patients, 560 UC patients, and 682 healthy controls) were enrolled from 16 studies. Both CD (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.36; 95% CI, -1.74 to -0.98; P < 0.00001) and UC patients (SMD: -0.81; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.42; P < 0.0001) had a lower abundance of F. prausnitzii than the healthy controls. Compared with the IBD remission patients, the IBD active patients had lower levels of F. prausnitzii (SMD: -0.56; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.21; P = 0.002). In the subgroup analyses, the abundance of F. prausnitzii was reduced in both active CD patients (SMD: -0.78; 95% CI, -1.51 to -0.04; P = 0.04) and active UC patients (SMD:-0.44; 95%CI, -0.81 to -0.07; P = 0.02) when compared with the patients with CD or UC in remission, respectively. CONCLUSION: A negative association between abundance of F. prausnitzii and IBD activity is observed, but a cut-off level of F. prausnitzii to diagnose and/or to start treating IBD is not determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".