Critical appraisal of the SIBO hypothesis and breath testing: A clinical practice update endorsed by the European society of neurogastroenterology and motility (ESNM) and the American neurogastroenterology and motility society (ANMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is compelling evidence that microbe-host interactions in the intestinal tract underlie many human disorders, including disorders of gut-brain interactions (previously termed functional bowel disorders), such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) has been recognized for over a century in patients with predisposing conditions causing intestinal stasis, such as surgical alteration of the small bowel or chronic diseases, including scleroderma and is associated with diarrhea and signs of malabsorption. Over 20 years ago, it was hypothesized that increased numbers of small intestine bacteria might also account for symptoms in the absence of malabsorption in IBS and related disorders. This SIBO-IBS hypothesis stimulated significant research and helped focus the profession's attention on the importance of microbe-host interactions as a potential pathophysiological mechanism in IBS. PURPOSE: However, after two decades, this hypothesis remains unproven. Moreover, it has led to serious unintended consequences, namely the widespread use of unreliable and unvalidated breath tests as a diagnostic test for SIBO and a resultant injudicious use of antibiotics. In this review, we examine why the SIBO hypothesis remains unproven and, given the unintended consequences, discuss why it is time to reject this hypothesis and its reliance on breath testing. We also examine recent IBS studies of bacterial communities in the GI tract, their composition and functions, and their interactions with the host. While these studies provide important insights to guide future research, they highlight the need for further mechanistic studies of microbe-host interactions in IBS patients before we can understand their possible role in diagnosis and treatment of patient with IBS and related disorders.
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 | 0.049 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".