The potential of fecal microbiota and amino acids to detect and monitor patients with adenoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of recurrent dysplastic colonic lesions is increased following polypectomy. Yield of endoscopic surveillance after adenoma removal is low, while interval colorectal cancers occur. To longitudinally assess the dynamics of fecal microbiota and amino acids in the presence of adenomatous lesions and after their endoscopic removal. In this longitudinal case–control study, patients collected fecal samples prior to bowel preparation before scheduled colonoscopy and 3 months after this intervention. Based on colonoscopy outcomes, patients with advanced adenomas and nonadvanced adenomas (0.5–1.0 cm) who underwent polypectomy during endoscopy (n = 19) were strictly matched on age, body-mass index, and smoking habits to controls without endoscopic abnormalities (n = 19). Microbial taxa were measured by 16S RNA sequencing, and amino acids (AA) were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Adenoma patients were discriminated from controls based on AA and microbial composition. Levels of proline (p = .001), ornithine (p = .02) and serine (p = .02) were increased in adenoma patients compared to controls but decreased to resemble those of controls after adenoma removal. These AAs were combined as a potential adenoma-specific panel (AUC 0.79(0.64–0.94)). For bacterial taxa, differences between patients with adenomas and controls were found (Bifidobacterium spp.↓, Anaerostipes spp.↓, Butyricimonas spp.↑, Faecalitalea spp.↑ and Catenibacterium spp.↑), but no alterations in relative abundance were observed after polypectomy. Furthermore, Faecalitalea spp. and Butyricimonas spp. were significantly correlated with adenoma-specific amino acids. We selected an amino acid panel specifically increased in the presence of adenomas and a microbial signature present in adenoma patients, irrespective of polypectomy. Upon validation, these panels may improve the effectiveness of the surveillance program by detection of high-risk individuals and determination of surveillance endoscopy timing, leading to less unnecessary endoscopies and less interval cancer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".