Safety and Feasibility of Faecal Microbiota Transplant for Major Depressive Disorder: Study Protocol for a Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mental disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD), are a leading cause of non-fatal burden of disease globally. Current conventional treatments for depression have significant limitations, and there have been few new treatments in decades. The microbiota-gut-brain- axis is now recognised as playing a role in mental and brain health, and promising preclinical and clinical data suggest Faecal Microbiota Transplants (FMT) may be efficacious for treating a range of mental illnesses. However, there are no existing published studies in humans evaluating the efficacy of FMT for MDD.Methods and designThis protocol describes an 8-week, triple-blind, 2:1 parallel group, randomised controlled pilot trial (n=15), of enema-delivered FMT treatment (n=10) compared with a placebo enema (n=5) in adults with moderate-to-severe MDD. There will be a further 26-week follow up to monitor longer-term safety. Participants will receive four FMT or placebo enemas over four consecutive days. The primary aims of the study are to evaluate feasibility and safety of FMT as an adjunctive treatment for MDD in adults. Changes in gut microbiota will be assessed as a secondary outcome. Other data will be collected, including changes in depression and anxiety symptoms, and safety parameters.DiscussionModification of the microbiota-gut-brain axis via FMT is a promising potential treatment for MDD, but there are no published rigorous clinical trials evaluating its use. If this study finds that our FMT strategy is safe and feasible, a larger fully powered RCT is planned. Further high-quality research in this field is urgently needed to address unmet need.Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000932864
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 | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.011 |
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".