MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958812639 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7409148

The causal relationship between gut microbiota and constipation: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study

2024· other· en· W6958812639 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMendelian randomizationGut floraObservational studyCausality (physics)ConstipationOdds ratioPleiotropyConfounding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Constipation is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders afflicting the population, with recent observational studies implicating dysfunction of the gut microbiota in constipation. Despite observational studies indicating a relationship, a clear causality remains unclear. This study aims to use two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) to establish a clearer causal relationship between the two. Methods A two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study was performed using the gut microbiota summary Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) statistics from MiBioGen consortium (n = 13,266) and constipation GWAS summary statistics from the IEU OpenGWAS database. The causality between gut microbiota and constipation is primarily analyzed using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method and reinforced by an additional four methods, including MR-Egger, Weighted Median, Simple Mode, and Weighted Mode. Finally, funnel plot, heterogeneity test, horizontal pleiotropy test, and leave-one-out test were used to evaluate the reliability of MR results. Results IVW estimates suggested that the bacterial species Anaerotruncus, Butyricimonas, and Hungatella were causally associated with constipation. The odds ratio (OR) values of Anaerotruncus, Butyricimonas, and Hungatella were 1.08 (95% CI = 1.02–1.13; P = 0.007), 1.07 (95% CI = 1.01–1.13; P = 0.015), 1.03 (95% CI = 1.00-1.06; P = 0.037) respectively. Meanwhile, Ruminiclostridium 9 and Intestinibacter have been shown to be associated with a reduced risk of constipation. The OR of Ruminiclostridium 9 = 0.75(95% CI = 0.73–0.78, P < 0.001 and Intestinibacter of OR = 0.89 (95% CI = 0.86–0.93, P < 0.001). Furthermore, validation by funnel plot, heterogeneity test, and horizontal pleiotropy test showed that MR results were reliable. Conclusion This is the first Mendelian randomization study to explore the causalities between specific gut microbiota taxa and constipation, and as such may be useful in providing insights into the unclear pathology of constipation which can in turn aid in the search for prevention and treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207