ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Characteristics of gut and lung microbiota in patients with lung masses and their relationship with clinical features.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing the Gut Microbiota to Improve Cancer Immunotherapy: Focus on Lung Cancer.Immune network · 2026Review
- Paired comparison of tumor core and airway lumen (BALF) microbiomes in lung adenocarcinoma: deciphering specificFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe exploration of how dysbiosis relates to lung masses is still nascent, with few studies focusing on the microbial characteristics across various sites. Therefore, we categorized the microbiota into feces and bronchoalveolar fluid (BALF) groups to compare microbial characteristics between benign and malignant masses, analyze their clinical correlations, and develop predictive models for lung cancer.
methodsA total of 238 fecal samples and 34 BALF samples were collected from patients with benign and malignant masses and then analyzed by 16 SrRNA. We explored the distinct composition of the gut and lung microbiota and their associations with clinical features. The diagnostic models were constructed using microbial features identified through two approaches: random forest algorithm with five-fold cross-validation and comparative analysis of significantly differential taxa. The performance evaluation was subsequently conducted using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsThere was no significant difference in α-and β-diversity between feces and BALF groups. The relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136_group (P = 0.003232) and Erysipelotrichaceae_UCG-003 (P = 0.01316) in feces group and Proteobacteria (P = 0.03654) in BALF group were significantly increased in lung cancer patients. We also found Bacteroides (P = 0.01458) was abundant in NSCLC than those of SCLC in feces group, while the BALF group was dominated by norank_c_Cyanobacteria (P = 0.03384). Smoking history appeared to be related to the distribution of microbiota, with enrichment of Parabacteroides (P = 0.02054) in feces and Prevotella_1 (P = 0.03286) in BALF. Furthermore, the patients with Sellimonas (P = 0.04148) in feces and Alloprevotella (P = 0.04283) in BALF seemed to have better response to chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy. For differentiating benign and malignant masses, the combination of Megasphaera and norank_p__Saccharibacteria in BALF demonstrated superior predictive performance, with an AUC reaching 0.8 (95% CI 0.59-1).
conclusionThe microbiota composition significantly differed between benign and malignant masses in both fecal and BALF groups, with minimal evidence supporting microbial migration between these two sites. Our findings suggest that BALF microbiota may serve as a more reliable biomarker for lung masses classification, offering valuable insights for early diagnosis and clinical decision-making.
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.