MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221083344 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2057416

Effects of a mediterranean diet on the gut microbiota and microbial metabolites: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

2022· review· en· W4221083344 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Kimble, Phébée Gouinguenet, Ammar W. Ashor, Christopher J. Stewart, Kevin Deighton, Jamie Matu, Alex Griffiths, Fiona C. Malcomson, Abraham Joel, David Houghton, Emma Stevenson, Anne Marie Minihane, Mario Siervo, Oliver M. Shannon, John C. Mathers

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsObservational studyMediterranean dietRandomized controlled trialMicrobiomeGut floraCINAHLMedicineSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryMetagenomicsMEDLINEBiologyPhysiologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumption of the Mediterranean dietary pattern (MedDiet) is associated with reduced risk of numerous non-communicable diseases. Modulation of the composition and metabolism of the gut microbiota represents a potential mechanism through which the MedDiet elicits these effects. We conducted a systematic literature search (Prospero registration: CRD42020168977) using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscuss, Scopus and CINAHL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies exploring the impact of a MedDiet on gut microbiota composition (i.e., relative abundance of bacteria or diversity metrics) and metabolites (e.g., short chain fatty acids). Seventeen RCTs and 17 observational studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. Risk of bias across the studies was mixed but mainly identified as low and unclear. Overall, RCTs and observational studies provided no clear evidence of a consistent effect of a MedDiet on composition or metabolism of the gut microbiota. These findings may be related to the diverse methods across studies (e.g., MedDiet classification and analytical techniques), cohort characteristics, and variable quality of studies. Further, well-designed studies are warranted to advance understanding of the potential effects of the MedDiet using more detailed examination of microbiota and microbial metabolites with reference to emerging characteristics of a healthy gut microbiome.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations76
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207