MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alterations in oral microbiomes in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infected and Recovery Patients

2023· preprint· en· W4385446174 on OpenAlexaff
Chunfu Zheng, Zhigang Ren, Junyi Sun, Qi Liu, Jiyuan Xing, Ning Xu, Liwen Liu, Guizhen Zhang, Ying Sun, Yawen Zou, Haiyu Wang, Benchen Rao, Xinyue Zhang, Zujiang Yu, Guangying Cui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological and COVID-19 studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral MicrobiomeCohortMicrobiomeMicroecologyDiseaseTongueBiologyInternal medicineMedicineGastroenterologyImmunologyMicrobiologyPathologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Our study aimed to investigate the oral microbiome of patients infected with the Omicron variant (PIOV) and the changes in oral microbiota during the recovery of infection, compared to those infected with the original strain (PIOS) and provide a theoretical foundation for early diagnosis and disease prognosis of PIOV from the perspective of microecology. Design We collected 963 samples of tongue-coating prospectively, including 349 samples of PIOV, 242 samples of recovered patients from PIOV (RP), 300 samples of healthy controls (HC), and 72 samples of PIOS. We randomly selected tongue-coating samples from PIOV and HC at a ratio of 2:1, respectively, as the discovery cohort and validation cohort. Results Oral microbial diversity was significantly increased in PIOV. Compared to HC, conditional pathogenic bacteria were increased in PIOV. The classifier based on 6 optimal oral microbial markers had high diagnostic efficiency in both cohorts. Oral microbiota numbers were changed as the disease recovered. Conclusion For the first time, our study characterizes the oral microbiota of PIOV and RP, successfully establishes and validates the noninvasive diagnostic model of PIOV, and outlines the correlation between the OTUs of microbiota and clinical indicators.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDermatological and COVID-19 studiesFrench-language works237,207