Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human microbiome may play a significant role in both health and disease. However, most studies to date have focused on the microbiome's role in pathogenesis, while its potential role in promoting well-being remains underexplored. We conducted the first meta-analysis synthesizing empirical evidence on associations between the human microbiome and psychological well-being. Based on eight analyzed studies (N = 2526 participants), we found that both microbial diversity and taxonomic abundance were positively associated with psychological well-being, with diversity emerging as the stronger predictor. Notably, these associations appeared consistent across sex and age. This study provides preliminary evidence that microbiome composition may support salutogenic processes and offers a foundation for future integration of microbiome science into psychological and clinical interventions. However, given the small number of empirical studies included in the meta-analysis, the generalizability of these findings remains limited. Further research is required to strengthen and refine our understanding of the microbiome-well-being relationship.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it