MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084049814 · doi:10.1128/msphere.00498-20

Oxalate-Degrading Bacillus subtilis Mitigates Urolithiasis in a Drosophila melanogaster Model

2020· article· en· W3084049814 on OpenAlexafffund
Kait F. Al, Brendan A. Daisley, Ryan M. Chanyi, Jennifer Bjazevic, Hassan Razvi, Gregor Reid, Jeremy P. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenuemSphere · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersW. Garfield Weston Foundation
KeywordsBacillus subtilisDrosophila melanogasterOxalateChemistryMicrobiologyFood scienceBiologyBiochemistryBacteriaGeneticsOrganic chemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kidney stone disease is a morbid condition that is increasing in prevalence, with few nonsurgical treatment options. The majority of stones are composed of calcium oxalate. Unlike humans, some microbes can break down oxalate, suggesting that microbial therapeutics may provide a novel treatment for kidney stone patients. This study demonstrated that Bacillus subtilis 168 (BS168) decreased stone burden, improved health, and complemented the microbiota in a Drosophila melanogaster urolithiasis model, while not exacerbating calcium oxalate aggregation or adhesion to renal cells in vitro . These results identify this bacterium as a candidate for ameliorating stone formation; given that other strains of B. subtilis are components of fermented foods and are used as probiotics for digestive health, strain 168 warrants testing in humans. With the severe burden that recurrent kidney stone disease imposes on patients and the health care system, this microbial therapeutic approach could provide an inexpensive therapeutic adjunct.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemSphereSame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207