Characterization of the Lower Airways and Oral Microbiota in Healthy Young Persons in the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower airway dysbiosis contributes to disease pathogenesis in respiratory diseases. However, little is known regarding the microbiota of lower airways or the oral cavity of healthy young persons. To address this gap, 25 healthy persons (24.3 ± 3.3 years; 52% females; no current smokers) underwent bronchoscopy during which bronchial brushing (BB) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid were collected. Prior to the procedure, an oral wash (OW) sample was also obtained. Microbiome analyses (16S rRNA locus) were performed (alpha- and beta-diversity, taxa annotations, and predicted functional metagenomic profiles) according to the airway compartment (BB, BAL, and OW). The greatest microbial richness was observed in OW and the lowest in BB (p < 0.001). Microbial communities differed significantly across compartments (p < 0.001), especially between BB and OW. Taxa analyses showed a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes (BB: 32.7%; BAL: 31.4%) compared to OW (20.9%) (p < 0.001). Conversely, Proteobacteria predominated in OW (27.9%) as opposed to BB (7.0%) and BAL (12.5%) (p < 0.001), mostly due to a greater abundance of the bacteria in the Haemophilus genus in the OW (p < 0.001). The lower airway microbiota (BB and BAL) is significantly different from the OW microbiota in healthy young persons with respect to microbial diversity, taxa profiles, and predicted function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".