Cross-cohort analysis identifies shared gut microbial signatures and validates microbial risk scores for colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbiome-wide association studies showed links between colorectal cancer (CRC) and gut microbiota. However, the clinical application of gut microbiota in CRC prevention has been hindered by the diversity of study populations and technical variations. We aimed to determine CRC-related gut microbial signatures based on cross-regional, cross-population, and cross-cohort metagenomic datasets, and elucidate its application value in CRC risk assessment. We used the MMUPHin tool to perform a meta-analysis of our own cohort and seven publicly available metagenomics datasets to identify gut microbial species associated with CRC across different cohorts, comprising of 570 CRC cases and 557 controls. Based on differential species sets, we constructed the microbial risk score (MRS) using α-diversity of the sub-community (MRSα), weighted/unweighted summation methods and machine learning algorithms. Cohort-to-cohort training and validation were performed to demonstrate the transferability. We found that MRSα of core species was better validated and more interpretable than those constructed with summation methods or machine learning algorithms. Six species, including Parvimonas micra, Clostridium symbiosum, Peptostreptococcus stomatis, Bacteroides fragilis, Gemella morbillorum, and Fusobacterium nucleatum, were included in MRSα constructed by half or more of the cohorts. The AUC of MRSα, calculated based on the sub-community of six species, varied between 0.619 and 0.824 across the eight cohorts. We identified six CRC-related species across regions, populations, and cohorts. The constructed MRSα could contribute to the risk prediction of CRC in different populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".