Successful weight regain attenuation by autologous fecal microbiota transplantation is associated with non-core gut microbiota changes during weight loss; randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported that autologous-fecal-microbiota-transplantation (aFMT), following 6 m of lifestyle intervention, attenuated subsequent weight regain and insulin rebound for participants consuming a high-polyphenol green-Mediterranean diet. Here, we explored whether specific changes in the core (abundant) vs. non-core (low-abundance) gut microbiome taxa fractions during the weight-loss phase (0–6 m) were differentially associated with weight maintenance following aFMT. Eighty-two abdominally obese/dyslipidemic participants (age = 52 years; 6 m weightloss = −8.3 kg) who provided fecal samples (0 m, 6 m) were included. Frozen 6 m’s fecal samples were processed into 1 g, opaque and odorless aFMT capsules. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 capsules containing their own fecal microbiota or placebo over 8 m-14 m in ten administrations (adherence rate > 90%). Gut microbiome composition was evaluated using shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Non-core taxa were defined as ≤ 66% prevalence across participants. Overall, 450 species were analyzed. At baseline, 13.3% were classified as core, and Firmicutes presented the highest core proportion by phylum. During 6 m weight-loss phase, abundance of non-core species changed more than core species (P < .0001). Subject-specific changes in core and non-core taxa fractions were strongly correlated (Jaccard Index; r = 0.54; P < .001). Following aFMT treatment, only participants with a low 6 m change in core taxa, and a high change in non-core taxa, avoided 8–14 m weight regain (aFMT = −0.58 ± 2.4 kg, corresponding placebo group = 3.18 ± 3.5 kg; P = .02). In a linear regression model, low core/high non-core 6 m change was the only combination that was significantly associated with attenuated 8–14 m weight regain (P = .038; P = .002 for taxa patterns/treatment intervention interaction). High change in non-core, low-abundance taxa during weight-loss might mediate aFMT treatment success for weight loss maintenance.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03020186
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".