Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36646449›Full record

ArticleGut2023

Noëmie Daniel, Andrew T Gewirtz, Benoit Chassaing

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Gut microbes · 2026
    Article
  3. Gut microbes · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Noëmie DanielTeam "Mucosal Microbiota in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases", Institut Cochin, INSERM U1016, CNRS UMR 8104, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Andrew T GewirtzInstitute for Biomedical Sciences, Center for inflammation, Immunity and Infection, Digestive Disease Research Group, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6338-7578
Benoit ChassaingTeam "Mucosal Microbiota in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases", Institut Cochin, INSERM U1016, CNRS UMR 8104, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France benoit.chassaing@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-4285-769X
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRGeorgia State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccumulating evidence indicates that some non-absorbed food additives, including emulsifiers carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and polysorbate 80 (P80), can negatively impact intestinal microbiota, leading to microbiota encroachment, chronic low-grade intestinal inflammation and, subsequently, promotion of metabolic dysregulations. Detrimental impacts of emulsifier consumption on gut microbiota include depletion of the health-associated mucus-fortifying bacteria,

objectiveInvestigate, in mice, the potential of administration of exogenous

resultsDaily oral administration of

conclusionDaily administration of

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaAkkermansiaAnimalsDietInflammationMiceVerrucomicrobiaINFLAMMATIONINTESTINAL MICROBIOLOGYMUCUSPROBIOTICS

Identifiers

PMID36646449
PMCPMC10086484
OpenAlexW4316467762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.