ArticleBMC systems biology2016
A method for automated pathogenic content estimation with application to rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in BMC systems biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- New Studies of Pathogenesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Collagen-Induced and Collagen Antibody-Induced Arthritis Models: New Insight Involving Bacteria Flora.Autoimmune diseases · 2021Review
- Host-Microbiome Synergistic Control on Sphingolipid Metabolism by Mechanotransduction in Model Arthritis.Biomolecules · 2019Article
- 'NetShift': a methodology for understanding 'driver microbes' from healthy and disease microbiome datasets.The ISME journal · 2019Article
- Statistical analysis of co-occurrence patterns in microbial presence-absence datasets.PloS one · 2017Article
- Systemic Wound Healing Associated with local sub-Cutaneous Mechanical Stimulation.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSequencing technologies applied to mammals' microbiomes have revolutionized our understanding of health and disease. Hence, to assess diseases' progression as well as therapies longterm effects, the impact of maladies and drugs on the gut-intestinal (GI) microbiome has to be evaluated. Typical metagenomic analyses are run to associate to a condition (disease, therapy, diet) a pool of bacteria, whose eubiotic/dysbiotic potential is assessed either by α-diversity, a measure of the varieties populating the microbiome, or by Firmicutes to Bacteroides ratio, associated to systemic inflammation, and finally by manual and direct inspection of bacteria's biological functions, when known. These approaches lead to results sometimes difficult to interpret in terms of the evolution towards a specific microbial composition, harmed by large areas of unknown.
resultsWe propose to additionally evaluate a microbiome based on its global composition, by automatic annotation of pathogenic genera and statistical assessment of the net varied frequency of harmless versus harmful organisms. This application is intuitive, quantitative and computationally efficient and designed to cope with the currently incomplete species' functional knowledge. Our results, applied to human GI-microbiome data exemplify how this layer of information provides additional insights into treatments' impact on the GI microbiome, allowing to characterize a more physiologic effects of Prednisone versus Methotrexate, two treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) a complex autoimmune systemic disease.
conclusionsOur quantitative analysis integrates with previous approaches offering an additional systemic level of interpretation here applied, for its potential to translate into clinically relevant information, to the therapies for RA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.