Fecal microbiota transplantation is safe and tolerable in patients with multiple sclerosis: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with MS have an altered gut microbiota compared to healthy individuals, as well as elevated small intestinal permeability, which may be contributing to the development and progression of the disease. Objective: We sought to investigate if fecal microbiota transplantation was safe and tolerable in MS patients and if it could improve abnormal intestinal permeability. Methods: Nine patients with MS were recruited and provided monthly FMTs for up to six months. The primary outcome investigated was change in peripheral blood cytokine concentrations. The secondary outcomes were gut microbiota composition, intestinal permeability, and safety (assessed with EDSS and MRI). Results: The study was terminated early and was subsequently underpowered to assess whether peripheral blood cytokines were altered following FMTs. FMTs were safe in this group of patients. Two of five patients had elevated small intestinal permeability at baseline that improved to normal values following FMTs. Significant, donor-specific, beneficial alterations to the MS patient gut microbiota were observed following FMT. Conclusion: FMT was safe and tolerable in this cohort of RRMS patients, may improve elevated small intestinal permeability, and has the potential to enrich for an MS-protective microbiota. Further studies with longer follow-up and larger sample sizes are required to determine if FMT is a suitable therapy for MS.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".