The characteristics of the gut microbiota in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing evidence has indicated dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). However, the change in the intestinal microbiota varies between different studies. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the characteristics of the gut microbiota in PTB patients. The MBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched, and the quality of the retrieved studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A total of 12 studies were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with healthy controls, the index reflecting α-diversity including the richness and/or diversity index decreased in 6 studies, while β-diversity presented significant differences in PTB patients in 10 studies. Although the specific gut microbiota alterations were inconsistent, short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria (including Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcus, Blautia, Dorea, and Faecalibacterium), bacteria associated with an inflammatory state (e.g., Prevotellaceae and Prevotella), and beneficial bacteria (e.g., Bifidobacteriaceae and Bifidobacterium) were commonly noted. Our systematic review identifies key evidence for gut microbiota alterations in PTB patients, in comparison with healthy controls; however, no consistent conclusion could be drawn, due to the inconsistent results and heterogeneous methodologies of the enrolled studies. Therefore, more well-designed research with standard methodologies and large sample sizes is required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".