ArticleGut pathogens2026
Integrated analysis of gastric microbiome and clinical features for the diagnosis of gastric neoplasms.
Article in Gut pathogens, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer (GC) progression is closely associated with microbial dysbiosis. However, microbial alterations in the intermediate stage of gastric adenoma (GA) remain under-characterized. This study investigated stage-specific microbiome changes and evaluated predictive models integrating microbial and clinical features.
methodsWe analyzed 231 subjects (129 GA, 73 GC, 29 healthy controls [HC]) using 16 S ribosomal DNA sequencing of paired oral, non-lesional gastric mucosa (GM), and gastric lesion (GL) samples. Random Forest models were constructed using microbial genera and clinical features, validated via leave-one-out cross-validation.
resultsStepwise microbial dysbiosis was observed during GC progression. Alpha diversity was significantly lower in GC-GL than in HC-GM and GA-GL. Helicobacter pylori infection was associated with reduced alpha diversity in GL samples. Genera such as Streptococcus, Neisseria, and Haemophilus were enriched in GC-GL, while Phocaeicola, Faecalibacterium, and Bifidobacterium were depleted. A gastric neoplasm prediction model incorporating 33 microbial genera and six clinical variables (age, sex, BMI, hypertension, smoking, and atrophy) demonstrated superior predictive performance (AUC = 0.830) in distinguishing gastric neoplasms from HCs, compared to models using either microbial genera (AUC = 0.790) or clinical variables (AUC = 0.715) alone. The combined model also accurately distinguished between GA and GC (AUC = 0.807).
conclusionsThe gastric microbiome profile changes dynamically during GC progression, highlighting its potential role in tumor development. Integrating microbial signatures with clinical features enables robust classification of gastric neoplasms and may serve as a valuable adjunctive tool for diagnosis and risk stratification in endoscopic practice.
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.