ArticleScientific reports2025
The gut dysbiosis of mothers with gestational diabetes and its correlation with diet.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gut microbiota during pregnancy: a bibliometric analysis of global research trends and collaborative networks.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Intergenerational effects of the microbiota on neurodevelopment: mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2026Review
- Towards microbiome-informed strategies for predicting and preventing pregnancy complications.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- The interplay between gut microbiota and gestational diabetes mellitus: mechanisms, characteristics, and intervention strategies.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gut dysbiosis has been observed in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, changes in bacterial population are different among various countries due to genetic, environmental, and dietary differences. We compared the gut dominant phylum and some genus in GDM versus normo-glycemic pregnant in Iranian population, considering dietary intake. In this case-control study, 50 women diagnosed with GDM and 50 healthy pregnant, aged 18-35 yrs, during spring and summer, were participated. GDM was diagnosed based on the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Groups criteria. The bacterial populations were determined based on 16SrRNA gene expression. Actinomycetota (p = 0.02), and Bifidobacterium spp. (p = 0.001) was significantly higher in the gut of healthy mothers than the GDM. However, bacteroides was significantly higher in the gut of GDM mothers than the healthies (p = 0.02). Daily calorie intake showed a negative correlation with population of Bacteroidota (p = 0.04) and Actinomycetota (p = 0.009), but dietary carbohydrate and fat showed a positive correlation. Increase in dietary intake of mono- and poly-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs and PUFAs) was associated with higher Bacteroidota in the gut (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04). However, dietary cholesterol showed a negative correlation with population of Bacteroidota and Bifidobacterium spp. (p = 0.003 and p = 0.02). GDM was correlated with the gut dysbiosis. Daily calorie and cholesterol intake was positively associated with dysbiosis. However total intake of carbohydrates, MUFAs and PUFAs showed a protective effect.
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.