ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Potential protective role of
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The increasing prevalence of myopia worldwide poses significant public health concerns. Accumulating evidence suggests a potential link between ocular diseases and the gut microbiota (GM); however, whether the GM directly contributes to myopia development remains to be established. Methods: This study investigated the potential causal link between the GM and myopia through bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, further validated by experiments conducted on a form-deprivation myopia (FDM) guinea pig model. Bidirectional two-sample MR analysis was performed using genome-wide association study summary statistics comprising data on 196 GM taxa from the MiBioGen consortium and myopiaassociated data from the FinnGen database. Instrumental variables were carefully selected according to predetermined standards. Subsequently, MR estimates were calculated using the inverse variance weighted, MR-Egger regression, and weighted median approaches, along with supplementary sensitivity evaluations. Concurrently, FDM was experimentally induced in guinea pigs, and fecal samples were subjected to comprehensive full-length 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis. Results: MR analysis identified five bacterial taxa linked to the risk of myopia. Specifically, higher Bifidobacterium abundance was associated with lower myopia risk (odds ratio = 0.834, 95% confidence interval = 0.705-0.986, Discussion: Conclusively, supplementation with Bifidobacteria is a potential strategy for reducing the risk of myopia. Future research should focus on developing and testing Bifidobacterium-based interventions to validate their effectiveness in controlling myopia.
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.