Is the oral pathogen, Porphyromona gingivalis, associated to colorectal cancer?: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between the oral pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis (PG) and the gut microbiota in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients has been explored with inconsistent results. This study aims to systematically assess this potential association. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across three databases (Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science) from inception up to January 2023 and updated until November 2024. Inclusion criteria were observational studies examining PG in the microbiota of adults with CRC compared to healthy controls. Exclusion criteria were studies without control group of healthy individuals, other designs or without full-text access. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data following a pre-registered protocol. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or with a third reviewer. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results were summarized with a flow diagram, tables, and narrative descriptions. Meta-analysis was not feasible, so Fisher's method for combining p-values and the sign test were used as alternative integration methods. RESULTS: Finally, 18 studies, with 23 analysis units were included, providing a total sample of 4,373 participants (48.0% cases and 52.0%controls), 38.2% men and 61.8% women, with a similar distribution among cases and controls. The mean (SD) age of cases was 63.3 (4.382) years old and 57.0 (7.753) years for controls. Most of the studies analyzed the presence of PG in feces (70.0%) collected before colonoscopy (55.0%) and were classified with good quality (70.0%) in the RoB assessment. Results suggested an effect (Fisher's test, p = .000006) with some evidence towards a positive association of PG in CRC patients compared to healthy controls (Sign test, p = .039). CONCLUSIONS: Results of the systematic review suggest that PG is associated with the microbiota of CRC patients. Lack of information to calculate the effect size prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Future research should aim for standardized protocols and statistical approaches. FUNDING: No funding was received for this work. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The research protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 2023 (registration number: CRD42023399382).
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".