ReviewmSystems2025
Prioritizing precision: guidelines for the better use of population descriptors in human microbiome research.
Review in mSystems, 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.
- Vaginal microbiota impacts of a Lactobacillus crispatus live biotherapeutic and predictors of colonization in randomized controlled trial.Cell host & microbe · 2026Trial
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbiome science is a celebration of the connections between humans, our environment, and microbial organisms. We are continually learning more about our microbial fingerprint, how each microbiome may respond to identical stimuli differently, and how the quality of the environmental conditions around us influences the microorganisms we encounter and acquire. However, in this process of self-discovery, we have utilized socially constructed ideas about ourselves as biological factors, potentially obscuring the true nature of our relationships to each other, microbes, and the planet. The concept of race, which has continuously changing definitions over hundreds of years, is frequently operationalized as a proxy for biological variation and suggested to have a real impact on the microbiome. Scientists across disciplines and through decades of research have misused race as a biological determinant, resulting in falsely scientific justifications for social and political discrimination. However, concepts of race and ethnicity are highly nuanced, inconsistent, and culturally specific. Without training, microbiome researchers risk continuing to misconstrue these concepts as fixed biological factors that have direct impacts on our microbiomes and/or health. In 2023, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released recommendations on the use of population descriptors such as race and ethnicity in genetic science. In this paper, we posit similar recommendations that can and must be translated into microbiome science to avoid re-biologizing race and that push us toward the goal of understanding the microbiome as an engine of adaptation to help us thrive in a dynamic world.
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.