Changes in the intestinal microbiota of individuals with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease based on sequencing: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alterations in the composition and abundance of the intestinal microbiota occur in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, the results are inconsistent because of differences in the study design, subject area, and sequencing methodology. In this study, we compared the diversity and abundance of the intestinal microbiota of patients with NAFLD and healthy individuals through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched from their inception to March 20, 2023. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata software to analyze variations in the richness and abundance of the intestinal microbiota in patients with NAFLD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: A total of 28 articles were included. Shannon diversity was reduced in patients with NAFLD (SMD = -0.24 (95% CI -0.43-0.05, I2 = 71.7%). The relative abundance of Ruminococcus, Faecalibacterium, and Coprococcus all decreased, with total SMDs of -0.96 (95% CI -1.29 to -0.63, I2 = 4.8%), -1.13 (95% CI -2.07 to -0.19, I2 = 80.5%), and -1.66 (95% CI -3.04 to -0.28, I2 = 91.5%). Escherichia was increased in individuals with NAFLD (SMD = 1.78, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.45, I2 = 94.4%). CONCLUSION: Increasing the species diversity and altering the abundance of specific gut microbiota, including Coprococcus, Faecalibacterium, Ruminococcus, and Escherichia, may be beneficial for improving NAFLD.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".