MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400458150 · doi:10.3389/frmbi.2024.1321624

Spatially and temporally precise microbiome profiling in the small intestine using the SIMBA capsule with X-ray tracking

2024· article· en· W4400458150 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Wang, Sharanya Menon, Lynn Wilsack, Renata Rehak, Lawrence Lou, Christian Turbide, Jérémie Auger, Annie Tremblay, Olivier Mathieu, Sylvie Binda, Thomas A. Tompkins, Sabina Bruehlmann, Christopher N. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiomes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeCapsuleMedicineSampling (signal processing)FecesLactobacillus rhamnosusProbioticGastroenterologyBiologyMicrobiologyBioinformaticsComputer scienceBacteriaDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Few minimally invasive options for sampling the small intestinal (SI) luminal fluid exist to study the SI microbiota in health and disease. To address the lack of tools and methods to study GI regions that are difficult to access, Nimble Science developed a fully autonomous and passive sampling method, the Small Intestine MicroBiome Aspiration (SIMBA™) capsule, for convenient, high-quality, and reliable sampling to study the diet-microbiota interactions in the SI. Methods The sealing efficacy and microbial DNA preservation capacity of the SIMBA capsules was first validated through in vitro simulation assays. Then, a clinical study was conducted with 20 healthy participants to validate the in vivo use of SIMBA capsules to reliably capture samples for SI microbiome analysis before and after an intervention (NCT04489329). Briefly, participants ingested the capsules at baseline and 7 days later, with a probiotic capsule containing a blend of L. rhamnosus R0011 and B. longum R0175. Following baseline SIMBA capsule ingestion, multiple low-dosage x-ray scans were performed to track the sampling location. Fecal samples corresponding with the baseline and intervention capsule were analyzed for comparison. Results The SIMBA capsules’ performance in vitro demonstrated the potential for contamination-free sampling with preservation of the microbial communities. Within the clinical study, the capsules performed safely and reliably for collection of SI content. X-ray tracking confirmed that 97.2% of the capsules completed sample collection in the SI regions before reaching the colon. Importantly, our data showed that the capsules sampled in the right area of the intestines and that baseline SIMBA microbiome profile is significantly different from fecal microbiome profile. SIMBA successfully detected a concurrent probiotic intervention in the small intestine, which was not detectable using stool samples. Discussions The high accuracy of sampling location and sealing efficacy of the SIMBA capsules makes them potentially useful research tools in clinical trials for studying diet-microbiota interactions in health and disease, and perhaps eventually for the clinical diagnosis of GI tract conditions affecting the SI such as SIBO.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MicrobiomesSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207