ArticleGut microbes
Using fecal immmunochemical cartridges for gut microbiome analysis within a colorectal cancer screening program.
Article in Gut microbes. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiome signatures for detection of colorectal lesions in population-based FIT screening.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Characteristics of gut microbiota changes in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma during radiotherapy.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Spatial niches of the colorectal cancer microbiome: differences, interrelationships, and clinical implications of fecal, mucosal, and intratumoral microbiota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Gut Microbiota-induced Long Non-coding RNA Snhg9 Regulates the Development of Human Malignant Tumors.Current molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Fecal microbiomes from screening sampling tubes are stable despite varying sampling and storage conditions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The therapeutic promise of probioticFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program B-PREDICT is an invited two-stage screening project using a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for initial screening followed by a colonoscopy for those with a positive FIT. Since the gut microbiome likely plays a role in the etiology of CRC, microbiome-based biomarkers in combination with FIT could be a promising tool for optimizing CRC screening. Therefore, we evaluated the usability of FIT cartridges for microbiome analysis and compared it to Stool Collection and Preservation Tubes. Corresponding FIT cartridges as well as Stool Collection and Preservation Tubes were collected from participants of the B-PREDICT screening program to perform 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) based on center log ratio transformed abundances and used ALDEx2 to test for significantly differential abundant taxa between the two sample types. Additionally, FIT and Stool Collection and Preservation Tube triplicate samples were obtained from volunteers to estimate variance components of microbial abundances. FIT and Preservation Tube samples produce highly similar microbiome profiles which cluster according to subject. Significant differences between the two sample types can be found for abundances of some bacterial taxa (e.g. 33 genera) but are minor compared to the differences between the subjects. Analysis of triplicate samples revealed slightly worse repeatability of results for FIT than for Preservation Tube samples. Our findings indicate that FIT cartridges are appropriate for gut microbiome analysis nested within CRC screening programs.
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.