Gut dysbiosis in patients with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Recent evidence supports the contribution of gut microbiota dysbiosis to the pathophysiology of rheumatic diseases, neuropathic pain, and neurodegenerative disorders. The bidirectional gut-brain communication network and the occurrence of chronic pain both involve contributions of the autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis. Nevertheless, the current understanding of the association between gut microbiota and chronic pain is still not clear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the existing knowledge about gut microbiota alterations in chronic pain conditions. Methods Four databases were consulted for this systematic literature review: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The study protocol was prospectively registered at the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42023430115). Alpha-diversity, β-diversity, and relative abundance at different taxonomic levels were summarized qualitatively, and quantitatively if possible. Results The initial database search identified a total of 3544 unique studies, of which 21 studies were eventually included in the systematic review and 11 in the meta-analysis. Decreases in alpha-diversity were revealed in chronic pain patients compared to controls for several metrics: observed species (SMD= -0.201, 95% CI from -0.04 to -0.36, p=0.01), Shannon index (SMD= -0.27, 95% CI from -0.11 to -0.43, p<0.001), and faith phylogenetic diversity (SMD -0.35, 95% CI from -0.08 to -0.61, p=0.01). Inconsistent results were revealed for beta-diversity. A decrease in the relative abundance of the Lachnospiraceae family, genus Faecalibacterium and Roseburia, and species of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Odoribacter splanchnicus, as well as an increase in Eggerthella spp., was revealed in chronic pain patients compared to controls. Discussion Indications for gut microbiota dysbiosis were revealed in chronic pain patients, with non-specific disease alterations of microbes. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD42023430115.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".