Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40815145›Full record

SynthesismSystems2025

Race by other names: critiquing population categories in microbiome research.

Marta Scaglioni

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in mSystems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

1 author.

Marta ScaglioniCà Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Veneto, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3019-9922

Funding

European Research Council 949742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This minireview analyzes the social science literature on how categories of human difference are conceptualized and deployed in microbiome science, particularly in research conducted in Global South contexts. Through a systematic review of 180 microbiome studies (2014-2025) and analysis of social science critiques, it demonstrates how seemingly neutral terms like "population," "lifestyle," and "traditional" often imply racial meanings that echo colonial scientific frameworks. While microbiome science rarely uses explicit racial terminology, it frequently employs comparative frameworks that create hierarchical distinctions between Western and non-Western populations. The minireview argues that these categorizations stem not just from colonial legacies but from the comparative nature of scientific knowledge production itself. It traces the evolution of racial thinking in science from post-World War II genetics through contemporary microbiome research, showing how even as scientists reject biological racial determinism, race persists as an analytical category through various proxies. It concludes by examining recent efforts to develop more nuanced approaches to human categorization in microbiome science and calls for deeper integration of social science perspectives to avoid reproducing problematic categorizations while ensuring ethical and equitable research practices.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaRacial GroupsHumanscomparisonsGlobal Southmicrobiome sciencepopulationsracescientific categorization

Identifiers

PMID40815145
PMCPMC12455957

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.