MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416756768 · doi:10.1177/07067437251394369

Oral Methods of Microbiota Manipulation for Depression Symptoms: A Systematic Review: Méthodes orales de manipulation du microbiote pour traiter les symptômes de dépression : Une revue systématique

2025· article· en· W4416756768 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anna Oprea, Grace Huang, Omolara Soyinka, Megan Brookbank, James Abesteh, Maya Hartman, Alannah McEvoy, Joanna C. Dionne, Roumen Milev, Zainab Samaan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Psychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Systematic reviewClinical trialProbiotic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveThe effectiveness of current treatment options for depressive symptoms has been widely investigated with acknowledgment that some patients were either not adequately responding to treatment, finding the existing treatment intolerable, or otherwise prefer alternative options. There is increasing interest in microbiota modulation as an alternate form of depression treatment, with a growing number of trials and reviews on the subject published in the last five years. This systematic review aimed to analyze all completed randomized control trials (RCTs) that assessed depression symptoms in adults not using antidepressants, before and after oral methods of microbiota manipulation.MethodAll completed parallel-arm RCTs that assessed depression symptoms in adult participants before and after oral methods of microbiota manipulation were retrieved from four databases, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on study and intervention characteristics as well as RCT conclusions were collected independently and in duplicate, and each study's findings were summarized individually. Risk of bias was completed.ResultsWe included 66 RCTs in our review, 34 of which concluded significant differences between the intervention and control group in depressive symptom using different interventions and measures. Of the 66 trials, 54 used probiotic interventions, seven used prebiotic, eight used synbiotic and two used oral fecal microbiota transplantation. Wide variation was observed in studies' design, intervention composition and consumption methods across all 66 RCTs. No statistical synthesis or meta-analyses were possible due to the wide variety of interventions, measures and outcomes.ConclusionsThe heterogeneity of the existing RCTs did not allow for concrete conclusions on whether oral microbiota manipulation interventions are viable alternative treatment options for adults experiencing depression symptoms. We encourage the development of standardized guidelines for the design and reporting of microbiota studies in depression for the possibility of future intervention efficacy testing.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→