MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362696261 · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.03.015

Exploring the Influence of Gut Microbiome on Energy Metabolism in Humans

2023· review· en· W4362696261 on OpenAlexaff
Júlia Montenegro, Anissa M. Armet, Benjamin P. Willing, Edward C. Deehan, Priscila Giácomo Fassini, João Felipe Mota, Jens Walter, Carla M. Prado

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nutrition · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeGut microbiomeEnergy metabolismBiologyEnergy expenditurePhysiologyBioinformaticsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gut microbiome has a profound influence on host physiology, including energy metabolism, which is the process by which energy from nutrients is transformed into other forms of energy to be used by the body. However, mechanistic evidence for how the microbiome influences energy metabolism is derived from animal models. In this narrative review, we included human studies investigating the relationship between gut microbiome and energy metabolism -i.e., energy expenditure in humans and energy harvest by the gut microbiome. Studies have found no consistent gut microbiome patterns associated with energy metabolism, and most interventions were not effective in modulating the gut microbiome to influence energy metabolism. To date, cause-and-effect relationships and mechanistic evidence on the impact of the gut microbiome on energy expenditure have not been established in humans. Future longitudinal observational studies and randomized controlled trials utilizing robust methodologies and advanced statistical analysis are needed. Such knowledge would potentially inform the design of therapeutic avenues and specific dietary recommendations to improve energy metabolism through gut microbiome modulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations69
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in NutritionSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207