ArticleScientific reports2026
Gut microbiome composition differs between aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gut microbiome has emerged as an important modulator of cardiovascular diseases, yet data on aortic valve disorders, particularly aortic stenosis (AS), remain limited. This study aimed to characterize gut microbiome differences in patients with bicuspid (BS) and tricuspid aortic stenosis (TS) using aortic regurgitation (AR) patients as a clinically comparable control group with similar age distribution, comorbidities, and metabolic profiles. A total of 122 patients were included in this prospective cross-sectional study: 33 AR, 22 BS, and 67 TS patients. Microbiome profiling was conducted from anal swabs using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Beta diversity was assessed via UniFrac distances, and computed redundancy analysis was performed using linear discriminant analysis effect size. The groups were largely homogeneous regarding most clinical characteristics; AR patients showed only marginally worse renal function, while BS patients were slightly younger with fewer cases of diabetes. In beta diversity analyses, both TS and BS patients exhibited clearly distinct microbiome compositions compared with AR controls, independent of clinical parameters used as potential confounders. TS and BS patients differed only minimally from each other. AR patients showed higher abundances of Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Lachnoclostridium, and Alistipes, whereas AS patients exhibited increased levels of Corynebacterium, Anaerococcus, Peptoniphilus, and Finegoldia. Co-abundance network analysis revealed that AS patients displayed an extensive and highly interconnected bacterial network, characterized by strong correlations among taxa such as Bacteroides, Alistipes, Parabacteroides, and Faecalibacterium, rather than isolated changes in individual taxa. AR patients provide a clinically suitable control group for AS. AS patients show a distinct microbiome composition and a highly interconnected microbial network with three major hubs, warranting further mechanistic investigation.
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.