Microbiome Composition in Microscopic Colitis: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Believed to be a rare cause of chronic diarrhoea, microscopic colitis (MC) is a condition with rising incidence. Many prevalent risk factors and the unknown pathogenesis of MC rationalise the need for studies on microbiota composition. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched. Eight case-control studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Clinical details on the study population and MC were poor. The most consistent result among the studies was a decreased Akkermansia genus in faecal samples. Other results were inconsistent due to the different taxonomic levels of the outcomes. Possible changes in different taxa were observed in patients who suffered from MC compared to healthy controls. The alpha diversity compared between MC and the diarrhoea control may suggest potential similarities. The beta diversity in MC compared to healthy and diarrhoeal populations showed no significant outcomes. The microbiome composition in MC possibly differed from the healthy control, but no agreement regarding taxa was made. It might be relevant to focus on possible factors influencing the microbiome composition and its relationship with other diarrhoeal diseases.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it