ArticlePloS one2024
Sputum production and salivary microbiome in COVID-19 patients reveals oral-lung axis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Microbiome and One Health in GCC countries: current status, research gaps, and future directions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2, a severe respiratory disease primarily targeting the lungs, was the leading cause of death worldwide during the pandemic. Understanding the interplay between the oral microbiome and inflammatory cytokines during acute infection is crucial for elucidating host immune responses. This study aimed to explore the relationship between the oral microbiome and cytokines in COVID-19 patients, particularly those with and without sputum production. Saliva and blood samples from 50 COVID-19 patients were subjected to 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing for oral microbiome analysis, and 65 saliva and serum cytokines were assessed using Luminex multiplex analysis. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare cytokine levels between individuals with and without sputum production. Logistic regression machine learning models were employed to evaluate the predictive capability of oral microbiome, salivary, and blood biomarkers for sputum production. Significant differences were observed in the membership (Jaccard dissimilarity: p = 0.016) and abundance (PhILR dissimilarity: p = 0.048; metagenomeSeq) of salivary microbial communities between patients with and without sputum production. Seven bacterial genera, including Prevotella, Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Atopobium, Filifactor, Leptotrichia, and Selenomonas, were more prevalent in patients with sputum production (p<0.05, Fisher's exact test). Nine genera, including Prevotella, Megasphaera, Stomatobaculum, Selenomonas, Leptotrichia, Veillonella, Actinomyces, Atopobium, and Corynebacteria, were significantly more abundant in the sputum-producing group, while Lachnoanaerobaculum was more prevalent in the non-sputum-producing group (p<0.05, ANCOM-BC). Positive correlations were found between salivary IFN-gamma and Eotaxin2/CCL24 with sputum production, while negative correlations were noted with serum MCP3/CCL7, MIG/CXCL9, IL1 beta, and SCF (p<0.05, Mann-Whitney test). The machine learning model using only oral bacteria input outperformed the model that included all data: blood and saliva biomarkers, as well as clinical and demographic variables, in predicting sputum production in COVID-19 subjects. The performance metrics were as follows, comparing the model with only bacteria input versus the model with all input variables: precision (95% vs. 75%), recall (100% vs. 50%), F1-score (98% vs. 60%), and accuracy (82% vs. 66%).
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.