Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34793867›Full record

ArticleJournal of hepatology2022

Stool microbiota are superior to saliva in distinguishing cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy using machine learning.

Krishnakant Saboo, Nikita V Petrakov, Amirhossein Shamsaddini, Andrew Fagan, Edith A Gavis, Masoumeh Sikaroodi, Sara McGeorge, Patrick M Gillevet, Ravishankar K Iyer, Jasmohan S Bajaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hepatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Machine learning techniques in hepatic encephalopathy: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Regulatory effects of oral microbe on intestinal microbiota and the illness.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  13. The Link between Gut Microbiota and Hepatic Encephalopathy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Krishnakant SabooDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Nikita V PetrakovDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Amirhossein ShamsaddiniMicrobiome Analysis Center, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, USA.
Andrew FaganDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University and Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Edith A GavisDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University and Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Masoumeh SikaroodiMicrobiome Analysis Center, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, USA.
Sara McGeorgeDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University and Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Patrick M GillevetMicrobiome Analysis Center, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, USA.
Ravishankar K IyerDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Jasmohan S BajajDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University and Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: jasmohan.bajaj@vcuhealth.org.

Funding

Health IT generated PROs to Improve Outcomes in CirrhosisR01HS025412 · AHRQ · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI BAJAJ, JASMOHAN S · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
Imaging Practices and Overdiagnosis of Thyroid CancerR01HS024512 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HAYMART, MEGAN RIST · 2016 to 2019
$861k
Gut Microbiota in the Modulation of Outcomes after Liver TransplantR21TR003095 · NCATS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI BAJAJ, JASMOHAN S, VERNA, ELIZABETH CLARICE · 2020 to 2021
$448k
Modulation of Gut-Brain Axis Using Fecal Microbiome Transplant Capsules in CirrhosisR21TR002024 · NCATS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI BAJAJ, JASMOHAN S · 2017 to 2018
$414k
Fecal Microbiota Transplant in Veterans with CirrhosisI01CX001076 · VA · VA VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL · PI BAJAJ, JASMOHAN S · 2015 to 2024
–
AHRQ HHS R01 HS024512AHRQ HHS R01 HS025412CSRD VA I01 CX001076NCATS NIH HHS R21 TR002024NCATS NIH HHS R21 TR003095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsSaliva and stool microbiota are altered in cirrhosis. Since stool is logistically difficult to collect compared to saliva, it is important to determine their relative diagnostic and prognostic capabilities. We aimed to determine the ability of stool vs. saliva microbiota to differentiate between groups based on disease severity using machine learning (ML).

methodsControls and outpatients with cirrhosis underwent saliva and stool microbiome analysis. Controls vs. cirrhosis and within cirrhosis (based on hepatic encephalopathy [HE], proton pump inhibitor [PPI] and rifaximin use) were classified using 4 ML techniques (random forest [RF], support vector machine, logistic regression, and gradient boosting) with AUC comparisons for stool, saliva or both sample types. Individual microbial contributions were computed using feature importance of RF and Shapley additive explanations. Finally, thresholds for including microbiota were varied between 2.5% and 10%, and core microbiome (DESeq2) analysis was performed.

resultsTwo hundred and sixty-nine participants, including 87 controls and 182 patients with cirrhosis, of whom 57 had HE, 78 were on PPIs and 29 on rifaximin were included. Regardless of the ML model, stool microbiota had a significantly higher AUC in differentiating groups vs. saliva. Regarding individual microbiota: autochthonous taxa drove the difference between controls vs. patients with cirrhosis, oral-origin microbiota the difference between PPI users/non-users, and pathobionts and autochthonous taxa the difference between rifaximin users/non-users and patients with/without HE. These were consistent with the core microbiome analysis results.

conclusionsOn ML analysis, stool microbiota composition is significantly more informative in differentiating between controls and patients with cirrhosis, and those with varying cirrhosis severity, compared to saliva. Despite logistic challenges, stool should be preferred over saliva for microbiome analysis. LAY SUMMARY: Since it is harder to collect stool than saliva, we wanted to test whether microbes from saliva were better than stool in differentiating between healthy people and those with cirrhosis and, among those with cirrhosis, those with more severe disease. Using machine learning, we found that microbes in stool were more accurate than saliva alone or in combination, therefore, stool should be preferred for analysis and collection wherever possible.

Indexed as

AgedFecesFemaleHepatic EncephalopathyHumansLiver CirrhosisMachine LearningMaleMass ScreeningMicrobiotaMiddle AgedPrognosisSalivaMachine LearningProton pump inhibitorsRandom Forest classifierRifaximinSHAP

Identifiers

PMID34793867
PMCPMC8858861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.