MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315880768 · doi:10.1177/07067437221150508

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Safety of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4315880768 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Green, Michael Berk, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Amy Loughman, Amelia J. McGuinness, David Castle, Mary Lou Chatterton, Joahna Perez, Philip Strandwitz, Eugene Athan, Christopher Hair, Andrew A. Nierenberg, John F. Cryan, Felice N. Jacka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWilson Foundation
KeywordsMajor depressive disorderMedicineAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialPopulationPlaceboBlindingTransplantationQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialInternal medicinePsychiatryMoodAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Perturbations of the intestinal microbiota have been associated with mental health disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD). Therefore, faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) holds promise as a microbiota-modulating treatment for MDD. Yet, to date, there are no published controlled studies evaluating the use of FMT for MDD. This study aimed to address this gap by evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of FMT for MDD. METHODS: = 5) in adults with moderate-to-severe MDD. RESULTS: Recruitment was completed within 2 months, with 0% attrition and 100% attendance at key study appointments. There were no major protocol deviations. The placebo and blinding strategies were considered successful; nurses and participants correctly guessing their treatment allocation at a rate similar to that anticipated by chance. No serious or severe adverse events were reported in either group, and there were no significant differences in mild-to-moderate adverse events between groups (median of 2 adverse events per participant reported in both groups). Furthermore, the 12/15 participants who completed the Week 2 participant satisfaction survey agreed or strongly agreed that the enema delivery was tolerable and that they would have the treatment again if required. Whilst the study was not designed to measure clinical outcomes, exploratory data also suggested that the active FMT treatment may lead to improvements in gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life in this population, noting that irritable bowel syndrome is commonly comorbid with MDD. CONCLUSIONS: All feasibility targets were met or exceeded. This study found that enema-delivered FMT is feasible, acceptable, well-tolerated, and safe in patients with MDD. The findings of this study support further research to evaluate clinical efficacy, and the use of this protocol is supported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207