ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone loss is a serious complication of mechanical unloading, such as that experienced during spaceflight or prolonged bed rest, and represents a significant clinical concern. Although the gut-bone axis has been implicated in bone homeostasis, its role under unloading conditions remains underexplored. Methods: In this study, we employed a hindlimb unloading (HU) mouse model to investigate the underlying mechanisms of HU-induced bone loss and the potential protective role of Results: Hindlimb unloading (HU) disrupted gut microbiota composition, reduced short-chain fatty acids (SCFA)-producing bacteria, and decreased SCFA levels, which was accompanied by reduced expression of ZO-1 and Occludin, elevated circulating LPS levels, and enhanced inflammatory markers in the bone microenvironment. Additionally, the proportion of Treg cells was reduced, which was associated with markers indicative of disrupted bone remodeling. LGG treatment was associated with partial restoration of microbial composition and SCFA levels, accompanied by improved intestinal barrier markers, reduced LPS and inflammatory cytokines, increased Treg proportions, and amelioration of bone microarchitecture. Conclusion: These findings suggested that LGG may have conferred protection against unloading-induced bone loss, potentially through modulation of the gut microbiota, alterations in SCFA profiles, improvement of intestinal barrier function, and immune regulatory changes involving Treg cells. This work highlighted the therapeutic potential of targeting the gut-bone axis to mitigate bone loss in microgravity or immobilization settings.
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.