MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399825970 · doi:10.1111/imr.13361

The influence of aging and the microbiome in multiple sclerosis and other neurologic diseases

2024· review· en· W4399825970 on OpenAlexaff
Naomi M. Fettig, Annie Pu, Lisa C. Osborne, Jennifer L. Gommerman

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunological Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeMultiple sclerosisDiseaseBiologyGut microbiomeConfoundingGut floraHealthy agingObservational studyPhenomeNeuroscienceImmunologyBioinformaticsMedicineGerontologyPathologyGeneticsPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human gut microbiome is well-recognized as a key player in maintaining health. However, it is a dynamic entity that changes across the lifespan. How the microbial changes that occur in later decades of life shape host health or impact age-associated inflammatory neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS) is still unclear. Current understanding of the aging gut microbiome is largely limited to cross-sectional observational studies. Moreover, studies in humans are limited by confounding host-intrinsic and extrinsic factors that are not easily disentangled from aging. This review provides a comprehensive summary of existing literature on the aging gut microbiome and its known relationships with neurological diseases, with a specific focus on MS. We will also discuss preclinical animal models and human studies that shed light on the complex microbiota-host interactions that have the potential to influence disease pathology and progression in aging individuals. Lastly, we propose potential avenues of investigation to deconvolute features of an aging microbiota that contribute to disease, or alternatively promote health in advanced age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunological ReviewsSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207