Features of Gut Microbiome Associated With Responses to Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been seen as a novel treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The results on microbial alterations and their relationship to treatment efficacy are varied among studies. We performed a systematic review to explore the association between microbial features and therapy outcomes. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2020. Studies that investigated the efficacy of FMT and baseline microbial features or dynamic alteration of the microbiome during FMT were included. The methodological quality of the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. A total of 30 studies were included in the analysis. Compared to non-responders, the microbial structure of patients who responded to FMT had a higher similarity to that of their donors after FMT. Donors of responders (R-d) and non-responders (NR-d) had different microbial taxa, but the results were inconsistent. After FMT, several beneficial short-chain fatty acids- (SCFA-) producing taxa, such as Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium, Roseburia, and species belonging to them, were enriched in responders, while pathogenic bacteria (Escherichia coli and Escherichia-Shigella) belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria were decreased. Alterations of microbial functional genes and metabolites were also observed. In conclusion, the response to FMT was associated with the gut microbiota and their metabolites. The pre-FMT microbial features of recipients, the comparison of pre- and post-FMT microbiota, and the relationship between recipients and donors at baseline should be further investigated using uniform and standardized methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".