Genetically Predicted Causal Effects of Gut Microbiota and Gut Metabolites on Digestive Tract Cancer: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence from numerous observational studies and clinical trials has linked gut microbiota and metabolites to digestive tract cancer. However, the causal effect between these factors remains uncertain. Methods: Data for this study were obtained from the MiBioGen, TwinsUK Registry, and FinnGen (version R8). Two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis with inverse variance weighting method was primarily used, and the results were validated by heterogeneity analysis, pleiotropy test, and sensitivity analysis. Results: At P < 5 × 10 -8 , our analysis identified four gut microbiotas as risk factors for digestive tract cancer and six as risk factors for colorectal cancer. Conversely, one gut microbiota exhibited protection against bile duct cancer, and two showed protective effects against stomach cancer. At P < 1 × 10 -5 , our investigation revealed five, six, three, eight, eight, and eight gut microbiotas as risk factors for esophageal, stomach, bile duct, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers, respectively. In contrast, four, two, eight, two, two, and five gut microbiotas exhibited protective effects against these cancers. Additionally, GABA , a metabolite of gut microbiota, displayed a significant protective effect against colorectal cancer. Conclusion: In conclusion, specific gut microbiota and metabolites play roles as risk factors or protective factors for digestive tract cancer, and a causal relationship between them has been established, offering novel insights into gut microbiota-mediated cancer development. World J Oncol. 2023;14(6):558-569 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1737
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 | 0.053 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".