What Makes a Successful Donor? Fecal Transplant from Anxious-Like Rats Does Not Prevent Spinal Cord Injury-Induced Dysbiosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord injury (SCI) causes gut dysbiosis and an increased prevalence of depression and anxiety. Previous research showed a link between these two consequences of SCI by using a fecal transplant from healthy rats which prevented both SCI-induced microbiota changes and the subsequent development of anxiety-like behaviour. However, whether the physical and mental state of the donor are important factors in the efficacy of FMT therapy after SCI remains unknown. In the present study, rats received a fecal transplant following SCI from uninjured donors with increased baseline levels of anxiety-like behaviour and reduced proportion of Lactobacillus in their stool. This fecal transplant increased intestinal permeability, induced anxiety-like behaviour, and resulted in minor but long-term alterations in the inflammatory state of the recipients compared to vehicle controls. There was no significant effect of the fecal transplant on motor recovery in rehabilitative training, suggesting that anxiety-like behaviour did not affect the motivation to participate in rehabilitative therapy. The results of this study emphasize the importance of considering both the microbiota composition and the mental state of the donor for fecal transplants following spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".