Bifidobacteria Was Decreased in Adult Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Based on PCR and Bacterial Culture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The causes of irritable bowel syndrome remain unknown. Studies and meta-analyses revealed that intestinal microbiota disturbance was one of the causes of irritable bowel syndrome, but the results remained controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the association between them. We performed a systematic meta-analysis of case-control studies from January 2000 to December 2020 to compare fecal microbes based on polymerase chain reaction and bacterial cul- ture between adult irritable bowel syndrome patients and healthy controls. The standardized mean difference value and a 95% CI were calculated. Two professional researchers used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to reassess selected literature and extract high- quality studies. Six studies were included in our analysis. When all eligible studies were pooled into the meta-analysis, compared with healthy controls, the standardized mean differences of Bifidobacteria (standardized mean difference = -1.01, 95% CI =: -2.01 to -0.01) in irritable bowel syndrome patients decreased significantly, whereas the standardized mean differences of Enterococcus, Enterobacter, Lactobacillus, Bacteroides, and Escherichia coli did not change significantly in irritable bowel syndrome patients. However, heterogeneity was significant to perform sensitivity analysis and stratified analysis in all these special intestinal microbes. In summary, this study indicated that only Bifidobacteria was decreased in irritable bowel syndrome patients compared with healthy controls using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale standards to extract high-quality literature. Future studies are warranted to further dem- onstrate the relationship between them.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".