Swimming and the human microbiome at the intersection of sports, clinical, and environmental sciences: A scoping review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human microbiota is comprised of more than 10–100 trillion microbial taxa and symbiotic cells. Two major human sites that are host to microbial communities are the gut and the skin. Physical exercise has favorable effects on the structure of human microbiota and metabolite production in sedentary subjects. Recently, the concept of “athletic microbiome” has been introduced. To the best of our knowledge, there exists no review specifically addressing the potential role of microbiomics for swimmers, since each sports discipline requires a specific set of techniques, training protocols, and interactions with the athletic infrastructure/facility. Therefore, to fill in this gap, the present scoping review was undertaken. Four studies were included, three focusing on the gut microbiome, and one addressing the skin microbiome. It was found that several exercise-related variables, such as training volume/intensity, impact the athlete’s microbiome, and specifically the non-core/peripheral microbiome, in terms of its architecture/composition, richness, and diversity. Swimming-related power-/sprint- and endurance-oriented activities, acute bouts and chronic exercise, anaerobic/aerobic energy systems have a differential impact on the athlete’s microbiome. Therefore, their microbiome can be utilized for different purposes, including talent identification, monitoring the effects of training methodologies, and devising ad hoc conditioning protocols, including dietary supplementation. Microbiomics can be exploited also for clinical purposes, assessing the effects of exposure to swimming pools and developing potential pharmacological strategies to counteract the insurgence of skin infections/inflammation, including acne. In conclusion, microbiomics appears to be a promising tool, even though current research is still limited, warranting, as such, further studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".