Response to Maximilian and Gasche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We welcome the comments of Drs Maximilian and Gasche on the concept of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) [1]. Based on their seminal work, they propose that biofilms in the distal ileum could lead to distal SIBO, a concept that has been floated in the past but never validated. Furthermore, the distal ileum is different in terms of motility, transit, and ecology. Here motor patterns and microbial composition approximate those of the colon [3-5] and positive lactulose breath hydrogen tests (LBHTs) are to be expected. We note that over 50% of biofilm-negative patients in the reported study had a positive LBHT [1]. We have previously advocated for a more restrictive concept of SIBO and one that focuses on demonstrable impacts on microbiome and host biology and urged caution in extending the term to positive breath tests alone [6]. The biofilm story is interesting, but we contend that it is premature to equate distal ileal biofilms with SIBO and are concerned that this will lead to more confusion. The fascinating observations reported by Maximilian and Gasche reveal yet another way that a disturbed microbiome may be involved in the pathogenesis of IBS; nevertheless, we feel that conflating SIBO and biofilms is not appropriate at this stage. E.M.M.Q. prepared a draft of the letter which was reviewed and revised by all authors who approved a final version of the letter. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 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), https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14817 and Ileal biofilms confirm SIBO-IBS hypothesis: Comment on PMID 38798120, https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.70183.
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 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.040 | 0.056 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".