ArticleScientific reports2022
Reusing a prepaid health plan's fecal immunochemical tests for microbiome associations with colorectal adenoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiome signatures for detection of colorectal lesions in population-based FIT screening.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Colorectal cancer-associated bacteria are broadly distributed in global microbiomes and drivers of precancerous change.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An altered colonic microbiota probably increases colorectal adenoma (CRA) and cancer (CRC) risk, but large, unbiased fecal collections are needed to examine the relationship of gut microbiota diversity and composition to colorectal carcinogenesis. This study assessed whether fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) from CRA/CRC screening may fulfill this requirement. Using FIT, self-collected by members of Kaiser Permanente Hawaii (KPH), as well as interspersed quality control (QC) specimens, DNA was extracted and amplified to generate 16S rRNA microbiome profiles rarified at 10,000 reads. CRA/CRC were diagnosed by colonoscopy and histopathology. Covariates were from electronic KPH records. Of 921 participants' FIT devices, 538 (58%) yielded at least 10,000 rRNA reads and 1016 species-level variants mapped to 46 genera. Of the 538 evaluable participants, 63 (11.7%) were FIT-negative per protocol, and they were considered negative for CRA/CRC. Of the 475 FIT + participants, colonoscopy and pathologic review revealed that 8 (1.7%) had CRC, 71 (14.9%) had high-risk CRA, 107 (22.5%) had low-risk CRA, and 289 (60.8%) did not have CRA/CRC. Men were 2.27-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-3.91] more likely than women to be FIT+ . Men also had 1.96-fold (CI 1.24-3.07) higher odds of low-risk CRA, with similar trends for high-risk CRA and CRC. CRA/CRC were not associated with overweight, obesity, diabetes, or antibiotic prescriptions in this study. QC analysis across 24 batches of FIT devices revealed QC outliers in four batches. With or without exclusion of the four QC-outlier batches, as well as lenient (1000-read) rarefaction, CRA/CRC had no consistent, statistically significant associations with fecal microbiome alpha diversity, beta diversity or genera relative abundance. CRA/CRC had expected associations with male sex but not with microbiome metrics. Fecal microbiome profiling using DNA extracted from at-home collected, re-used FIT devices is feasible, albeit with substantial challenges. Using FITs for prospective microbiome studies of CRA/CRC risk should consider the impact of the current findings on statistical power and requisite sample sizes.
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.