Faecal Microbiota in Patients with Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction and Spinal Cord Injury or Multiple Sclerosis—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) frequently occurs in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and multiple sclerosis (MS) with comparable symptoms and is often difficult to treat. It has been suggested the gut microbiota might influence the course of NBD. We systematically reviewed the literature on the composition of the gut microbiota in SCI and MS, and the possible role of neurogenic bowel function, diet and antibiotic use. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase, which retrieved studies on the gut microbiota in SCI and MS. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: We retrieved fourteen papers (four on SCI, ten on MS), describing the results of a total of 479 patients. The number of patients per study varied from 13 to 89 with an average of 34. Thirteen papers were observational studies and one study was an intervention study. The studies were case control studies in which the gut microbiota composition was determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The methodological quality of the studies was mostly rated to be moderate. Results of two studies suggested that alpha diversity in chronic SCI patients is lower compared to healthy controls (HC), whereas results from five studies suggest that the alpha diversity of MS patients is similar compared to healthy subjects. The taxonomic changes in MS and SCI studies are diverse. Most studies did not account for possible confounding by diet, antibiotic use and bowel function. CONCLUSION: Based on these 14 papers, we cannot draw strong conclusions on the composition of the gut microbiota in SCI and MS patients. Putatively, alpha diversity in chronic SCI patients may be lower compared to healthy controls, while in MS patients, alpha diversity may be similar or lower compared to healthy controls. Future studies should provide a more detailed description of clinical characteristics of participants and of diet, antibiotic use and bowel function in order to make valid inferences on changes in gut microbiota and the possible role of diet, antibiotic use and bowel function in those changes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".