Gut Microbiota in Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review sought to comprehensively summarize gut microbiota research in psychiatric disorders following PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: Literature searches were performed on databases using keywords involving gut microbiota and psychiatric disorders. Articles in English with human participants up until February 13, 2020, were reviewed. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for microbiota studies. RESULTS: Sixty-nine of 4231 identified studies met the inclusion criteria for extraction. In most studies, gut microbiota composition differed between individuals with psychiatric disorders and healthy controls; however, limited consistency was observed in the taxonomic profiles. At the genus level, the most replicated findings were higher abundance of Bifidobacterium and lower abundance of Roseburia and Faecalibacterium among patients with psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Gut bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids, such as Roseburia and Faecalibacterium, could be less abundant in patients with psychiatric disorders, whereas commensal genera, for example, Bifidobacterium, might be more abundant compared with healthy controls. However, most included studies were hampered by methodological shortcomings including small sample size, unclear diagnostics, failure to address confounding factors, and inadequate bioinformatic processing, which might contribute to inconsistent results. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations to improve quality and comparability of future microbiota studies in psychiatry.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it