MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S178 A Systematic Review of the Gut Microbiota Profile in Patients With Heart Failure

2022· review· en· W4316078740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Martin Simadibrata, Salwa Auliani, Putu Ayu Widyastuti, Alya Darin Wijaya, Hilman Zulkifli Amin, Hary Sakti Muliawan, Bambang Budi Siswanto, Marcellus Simadibrata

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuminococcusGut floraFaecalibacterium prausnitziiFirmicutesEubacteriumLactobacillusPrevotellaMedicineBacteroidesDysbiosisLachnospiraceaeProteobacteriaMicrobiologyBifidobacteriumBiologyImmunologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The “gut-heart axis” could explain the role of the human gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF) by activation of host inflammation induced by a state of gut dysbiosis. This systematic review characterized the gut microbiota profile in HF patients compared to healthy subjects. Methods: Peer-reviewed human studies published in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library up to April 18, 2022, were searched. Studies comparing the gut microbiota profile in adult HF patients and healthy controls (HCs) were eligible for inclusion. The alpha diversity (microbial richness and diversity), beta diversity (dissimilarity in microbiota composition between two groups), and the relative abundance of gut microbiota taxa were compared in adult HF patients and HCs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results: A total of nine studies, including 317 HF patients and 510 HCs, were included in this systematic review. Decreased gut microbiota richness and similar microbial diversity and significantly different gut microbiota composition were observed between HF patients and HCs. HF patients had a greater abundance of Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Synergistetes phyla; Enterococcus, Escherichia, Klebsiella, Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus, Streptococcus, and Veilonella genera; and Ruminococcus gnavus, Streptococcus sp., and Veilonella sp. Species compared to HCs. Decreased abundance of Firmicutes phylum; Blautia, Eubacterium, Faecalibacterium, Lachnospiraceae FCS020, and Sutterella genera; and Dorea longicatena, Eubacterium rectale, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Oscillibacter sp., and Sutterella wadsworthensis species were noted in HF patients. Conclusion: The gut microbiota diversity, richness, and composition in HF patients are significantly different from HCs. Overall, short-chain fatty acids-producing gut microbiota was depleted in HF patients.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→