The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 128 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy
Open accessAbstract
The microbiome is receiving significant attention given its influence on a host of human diseases including cancer. Its role in response to cancer treatment is becoming increasingly apparent, with evidence suggesting that modulating the gut microbiome may impact responses to numerous forms of cancer therapy. A working knowledge of the microbiome is vital as we move forward in this age of precision medicine, and an understanding of the microbiome’s influence on immune responses and cancer is key. It is also important to understand factors influencing the gut microbiome and strategies to manipulate the microbiome to augment therapeutic responses.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
84 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 4 Partly supported · 1 Supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“they play such a large role in numerous host functions including immunity”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Sender et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results discuss where microbes reside and how many there are; the Discussion mentions microbiome metabolic capabilities but does not describe contributions to host functions. Searches for immunity, the immune system, and host functions found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Supportedcites Morgan and Huttenhower, 2012 source
Section 6, “Host Interactions and Interventions,” describes the microbiota’s role in maturation of the host immune system and intestinal development. It also describes substantial contributions to metabolism and signaling, supporting the claim that microbiota contribute to multiple host functions, including immunity. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“beneficial effects from mice with a more “favorable” microbiota could be transplanted to other mice using FMT or co-housing”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sivan et al., 2015 source
The passage describing cohousing (Fig. 1E–H) says that TAC mice appeared to acquire the JAX mice’s stronger antitumor phenotype. The fecal-transfer passage (Fig. 2A–C) reports that giving JAX fecal material to TAC mice delayed tumor growth and enhanced tumor-specific T-cell responses. Together, these support transfer of the beneficial effects by either co-housing or fecal transfer. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“demonstrating significant differences in tumor outgrowth in genetically similar mice with differing gut microbiomes purchased from two separate vendors”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Sivan et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passage describing the JAX and TAC comparison reports significantly different melanoma growth in genetically similar mice from two facilities. A later passage reports that anti–PD-L1 therapy was more effective in JAX mice, but the source describes PD-L1 blockade, not PD-1 blockade; the initial vendor comparison was of tumor growth before that treatment. (LLM, conf=0.87)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Bacterial taxa within the Ruminococaceae family of the Firmicutes phylum (such as F. prausnitzii) have been associated with both response and toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade across studies”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chaput et al., 2017 source
- Partly supportedcites Frankel et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report that Faecalibacterium prausnitzii was enriched in responders receiving combined checkpoint therapy, and the Discussion (page unavailable) describes similar response findings from other studies. Our copy does not link F. prausnitzii or other Ruminococcaceae taxa to treatment toxicity; its statement about toxicity concerns antibiotic or probiotic use instead. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports that Ruminococcaceae and the Faecalibacterium genus were enriched in melanoma patients who responded to anti-PD-1 therapy, and that higher Faecalibacterium abundance was associated with longer progression-free survival. The passages in our copy do not establish an association with treatment toxicity or identify F. prausnitzii specifically; they support the response portion of the claim, not the full across-studies statement. The supplied copy labels these passages with the paper title but gives no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“B and T cells, including Tregs and Th17 cells can, upon being primed by DCs presenting antigen derived from commensal organisms in draining mLNs of the gut, circulate systemically to facilitate immune responses at distant sites”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stary et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“health-promoting bacteria such as Faecalibacterium and Ruminococcus were reduced”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Biagi et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there is compelling evidence that the microbiota helps to shape the immune system as a whole”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Honda and Littman, 2016
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is mounting evidence supporting the role of the microbiome in response to cancer therapy”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Introduction
What the sources say
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“several recent studies demonstrating the influence of the gut microbiome specifically on the response to immune checkpoint blockade across cancer types”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Introduction
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is now mounting data from human cohorts suggesting that the gut microbiota is a dominant force in mediating both response and toxicity to these therapeutic strategies”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 37
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“germ-free (GF) mice that lack intestinal microbiota are noted to have severe defects in immunity, with an absent mucous layer, altered IgA secretion and reduced size and functionality of Peyer’s patches and draining mesenteric lymph nodes”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Johansson et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on germ-free mice reports altered intestinal mucus and lower colonic Muc2, but explicitly finds mucus present, not absent. The proteomic Results report changes in IgJ, a marker for IgA, after colonization; they do not establish altered IgA secretion. No passage found addresses the claimed reductions in Peyer’s patches or mesenteric lymph nodes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Spiljar et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “Microbiota Shapes the Immune System and the Host Metabolism” reports fewer and smaller Peyer’s patches and underdeveloped gut-associated lymphoid tissues in germ-free mice. It describes an altered mucus layer, not an absent one; “Dysregulation of Gut Mucosal Surfaces” says their large-intestinal mucus is easily penetrable. The copy does not establish altered IgA secretion or reduced size and function of mesenteric lymph nodes. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“cytokine secretion from Th17 cells stimulates IECs to form tight junctions and to secrete anti-microbial proteins”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Weaver et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“patients having a lower diversity of microbiota in their gut at the time of HSCT having shortened overall survival and higher mortality rates (specifically transplant-related mortality) compared to those with a high diversity of gut microbiota”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taur et al., 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dysbiosis can lead to impaired local, locoregional, and systemic immune responses with breakdown of mucosal barriers, translocation of gut bacteria to the mLNs and into the peripheral circulation”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Levy et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Th17 cells are markedly depleted in GF animals and can be induced by specific bacterial subsets such as segmented filamentous bacteria (SFB)”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“SCFAs here function in a manner dependent on their ability to inhibit histone deacetylase activity suggesting epigenetic regulation”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rooks and Garrett, 2016
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“IgA acts primarily by blocking bacterial adherence to epithelial cells; agglutination, entrapment and clearance; and also has direct effects on bacterial virulence”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mantis et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Toll-like receptor signaling from microbial peptides to DCs and other innate immune effectors generates cytokines and interferons that act in both a paracrine and endocrine manner at distant sites”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abt et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a disruption of the existing state of equilibrium of the gut microbiota post-HSCT with a relative dysbiosis and a loss of bacterial diversity and stability and dominance of Enterococcus, Streptococcus and various Proteobacteria”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dysbiosis and impaired systemic immunity is fairly common in these patients, as they are often treated with concurrent therapies that significantly alter immunity and composition of the gut microbiota”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“PAMPs act to induce maturation of antigen-presenting cells such as dendritic cells (DCs) as they sample antigen from the lumen”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lathrop et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“there are trillions of microbes as numerous as human cells, that interact with the host constantly at numerous sites”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“dysbiosis, which is characterized by a less diverse and less stable microbiota, with potential enrichment of opportunistic pathogenic bacteria”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The microbiome and immunity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Frosali et al., 2015
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The administration of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG alone or in combination with Ciprofloxacin before and during transplantation in mice was associated with reduced rates of GVHD and improved overall survival”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gerbitz et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“treatment-limiting toxicity with anti-PD-1 (16%), anti-CTLA-4 (27%), and combination therapies (65%)”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Larkin et al., 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This suggests that disrupting the gut microbiota (via antibiotic use) could potentially impair anti-tumor immune responses as well as response to immune checkpoint blockade”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Routy et al., 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 therapy was markedly reduced in GF mice and SPF mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vetizou et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The onset of acute-GVHD is associated with significant shifts in the composition of the microbiota with a loss of overall diversity and reduction of health-promoting obligate anaerobes such as Faecalibacterium, Ruminococcus, Lactobacillus, and Blautia, and an enrichment of Enterococcus and Clostridiales”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These effects were mediated by increased densities of CD8+ T-cells and reduced FoxP3+CD4+ Tregs in the tumor microenvironment”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matson et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Important initial insights came from murine models (Sivan et al., 2015, Vetizou et al., 2015), and many of these findings have now been validated in several patient cohorts treated with immunotherapy, specifically immune checkpoint blockade.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“administration of A. muciniphilia in these mice was associated with increased intra-tumoral immune infiltrates mediated by the recruitment of CCR9+CXCR3+CD4+ T cells into the tumor bed and increased ratio of CD4+ T-cells to CD4+FoxP3+ T-cells (Tregs) in response to PD1 blockade”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Routy et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Immune responses to cyclophosphamide have also been shown to be dependent on MyD88 and TLR signaling - suggesting that commensal microorganisms may play a role.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“mice receiving FMT from R had significantly delayed tumor outgrowth and enhanced response to treatment with immune checkpoint blockade”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“NR had significantly lower diversity of gut bacteria and higher abundance of Bacteroidales”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“mice that received responder-stool growing tumors at slower rate and having markedly improved efficacy to anti-PD- L1 immunotherapy when compared to mice that received non-responder stool”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matson et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the effects of cyclophosphamide and other chemotherapy regimens were abrogated in GF or antibiotic- treated mice and were differentially impacted by the presence of particular bacterial species”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“patients who responded to anti-PD-1 therapy had a significantly higher diversity of bacteria in their gut microbiota as well as a higher relative abundance of Clostridiales, Ruminococcaceae, and Faecalibacterium”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these data provide strong evidence that the gut microbiota can modulate anti-tumor immune responses and responses to immune checkpoint blockade.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the importance of these bacteria in implications for cancer therapy, it’s possible that diet could serve as a possible strategy to improve outcomes through modulation of the microbiome.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Diet
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“dietary intake can also promote differential composition of the microbiome, with evidence that profound and intensive changes in dietary regimens can significantly alter the gut microbiota in a relatively short amount of time (David et al., 2014).”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Diet
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites David et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“dietary and lifestyle factors may also account for some of the differences in bacterial taxa observed across the studies.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“FMT has already been employed in other patient populations, showing significant success in curing C. difficile infection resistant to conventional therapies (Borody et al., 2004).”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borody et al., 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber is one component that has been shown to have a profound influence on the composition of the gut microbiome, with a decrease in the abundance of immune-promoting F. prausnitzii (Benus et al., 2010) and the SCFA butyrate in stool samples after reducing dietary fiber in healthy human subjects.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Diet
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Benus et al., 2010 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Geographical influences also may exist, as these studies were performed in centers at different locations around the world.”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The current body of literature in this area has mapped the responsiveness of specific 15 bacterial groups and their downstream metabolites to a variety of nutrients and immune parameters and provides preliminary insight into how dietary modulation could be used as a strategy to enrich the gut microbiome and immune health (Ma et al., 2018, Shortt et al., 2018)”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Diet
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ma et al., 2018
- Not checked yetcites Shortt et al., 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“at lower levels of taxonomy within these phyla these generalizations do not apply, as some taxa within Firmicutes have been associated with a lack of response (Roseburia, Streptococcus)”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Bacteroidetes have also been associated with response (such as Akkermansia muciniphila, Bifidobacterium longum and Bifidobacterium adolescentis, and Colinsela aerofaciens) and non-response (such as Actinomyces viscosus, Garnderella vaginalis) (Frankel et al., 2017, Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018, Matson et al., 2018, Routy et al., 2018).”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A major function of the gut microbiota is to aid in host food digestion, harvesting key nutrients that the host is incapable of metabolizing without the help of microbes (Backhed et al., 2005).”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Diet
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Backhed et al., 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“bacterial taxa within the Bacteroidales order of the Bacteroidetes phylum have been associated with a lack of response to immune checkpoint blockade (Bacteroidales), while a higher abundance of these taxa within the gut are also generally associated with a lower incidence of toxicity”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“patients with colitis had increased expression of ICOS on the surface of effector CD4+ T-cells and low levels of Tregs and systemic inflammatory proteins such as IL-6, IL-8 and sCD25 in the blood at baseline, which may be related to the compositional differences in the microbiome”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chaput et al., 2017 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Several trials using probiotics in cancer patients have been initiated with some completed, and most studies have focused on safety and biomarker-related endpoints, with a minority including cancer- related outcomes (such as disease-free survival) as a primary endpoint (NCT02079662).”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > Manipulating the gut microbiota to improve responses to therapy > Administration of bacterial consortia or “designer probiotics”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites NCT02079662
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Effective conventional chemotherapy requires intact immune responses.
“effective treatment with conventional chemotherapy is also dependent on intact immune responses”
The paper relies on this without support.
GVHD susceptibility varies with the conditioning regimen, HLA mismatch and donor cell activation status.
“GVHD susceptibility varies with the type and extent of conditioning regimen, the degree of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch, and the activation status of donor cells.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A significant fraction of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors do not have objective or durable responses.
“a significant proportion of patients do not experience objective responses, and when responses do occur, may not be durable”
The paper relies on this without support.
Allogeneic stem cell transplant is one of the earliest effective forms of cancer immunotherapy.
“Though stem cell transplant may be considered one of the earliest effective forms of cancer immunotherapy”
The paper relies on this without support.
Dietary interventions for modulating the gut microbiota tend to have modest effects, and patient compliance is difficult to enforce and monitor.
“While dietary interventions may seem relatively simple to design and implement, the effects on the microbiota can be modest, and patient compliance is difficult to enforce and monitor.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, beneficial gut microbes have been shown to improve the antitumor effects of certain therapies such as ICIs by modulating the immune response.333–335”
From Drug repurposing for cancer therapy (2024) · cites this paper as [333]
In the citing paper
“In addition to regulation of infection and commensal spread, microbiome-immune interactions are implicated in a variety of ‘non-communicable’ gastrointestinal diseases including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)8 and celiac diseases,9 as well as extra-intestinal disorders ranging from rheumatic arthritis,10 metabolic syndrome,11 neurodegenerative disorder12 to malignancy.13”
From Interaction between microbiota and immunity in health and disease (2020) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the very same anti-cancer treatment might shape the patient’s microbiome and, at the same time, host’s specific microbiome can deeply affect patient’s response to therapy [19].”
From Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“These two effects combined together may explain the strong involvement of the patient’s microbiome composition in affecting the efficacy of both chemotherapy and immunotherapy [19].”
From Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“Overall, the role of the gut microbiota in shaping the complete immune system has become indisputable [10].”
From Probiotics Regulate Gut Microbiota: An Effective Method to Improve Immunity (2021) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Gut barrier dysfunction is also strongly correlated with other autoimmune, inflammatory, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis, heart failure, hypertension, and food allergies, as well as with cancer.10,11”
From Regulation of Intestinal Barrier Function by Microbial Metabolites (2021) · cites this paper as [10]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > The gut microbiota in response and toxicity to immunotherapy > The gut microbiota and stem cell transplantation
“early studies demonstrating reduced rates of GVHD in patients treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics prior to HSCT (van Bekkum et al., 1974)”
§ The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer, immunity, and cancer immunotherapy > References
“64. VAN BEKKUM DW, ROODENBURG J, HEIDT PJ & VAN DER WAAIJ D 1974 Mitigation of secondary disease of allogeneic mouse radiation chimeras by modification of the intestinal microflora.”
Citations
Cites
Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome
David, L. A., Maurice, C. F., Carmody, R. N., Gootenberg, D. B., Button, J. E., Wolfe, B. E., Ling, A. V., Devlin, A. S., Varma, Y., Fischbach, M. A., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12820 · Cited by 10,100
Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma
Larkin, J., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Gonzalez, R., Grob, J. J., Cowey, C. L., Lao, C. D., Schadendorf, D., Dummer, R., Smylie, M., Rutkowski, P., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1504030 · Cited by 8,157
Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle.
Chen, D. S., & Mellman, I. (2013) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.012 · Cited by 6,929 · cited 1×
“Recent evidence substantiates the need for preserved overall systemic immunity in mediating responses to immunotherapy specifically (Chen and Mellman, 2013, 2017; Spitzer et al., 2017).”
BackgroundTurnbaugh, P. J., Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Fraser-Liggett, C. M., Knight, R., & Gordon, J. I. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06244 · Cited by 6,091
Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors
Routy, B., Le Chatelier, E., Derosa, L., Duong, C. P. M., Alou, M. T., Daillère, R., Fluckiger, A., Messaoudene, M., Rauber, C., Roberti, M. P., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan3706 · Cited by 5,671
Primary, Adaptive, and Acquired Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy
Sharma, P., Hu-Lieskovan, S., Wargo, J. A., & Ribas, A. (2017) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017 · Cited by 5,588
Self-citationRevised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body
Sender, R., Fuchs, S., & Milo, R. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533 · Cited by 5,425 · cited 1×
“Therefore, it is not surprising that they play such a large role in numerous host functions including immunity (Sender et al., 2016; Morgan and Huttenhower, 2012).”
BackgroundElements of cancer immunity and the cancer–immune set point
Chen, D. S., & Mellman, I. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21349 · Cited by 5,352 · cited 1×
“Recent evidence substantiates the need for preserved overall systemic immunity in mediating responses to immunotherapy specifically (Chen and Mellman, 2013, 2017; Spitzer et al., 2017).”
BackgroundHost-Bacterial Mutualism in the Human Intestine
Bäckhed, F., Ley, R. E., Sonnenburg, J. L., Peterson, D. A., & Gordon, J. I. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1104816 · Cited by 5,277 · cited 2×
“…component that has been shown to have a profound influence on the composition of the gut microbiome, with a decrease in the abundance of immune-promoting F. prausnitzii (Benus et al., 2010) and the SCFA-butyrate in stool samples after a reduction in dietary fiber intake in healthy human subjects.”
BackgroundLetunić, I., & Bork, P. (2016) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkw290 · Cited by 5,023 · cited 2×
“Phylogenetic Tree Summarizing Previously Established Links between theGutMicrobiome, TreatmentOutcomes, and Toxicities in Cancer Patient Populations A phylogenetic tree was constructed using evolutionary distances with the phyloT software (Letunic and Bork, 2016) to depict phylogenetic similarity (or lack thereof) of…”
Method
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hallmarks of Cancer: New Dimensions
Hanahan, D. (2022) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-21-1059 · Cited by 9,887
“Beyond the causal links to colon cancer and melanoma, the gut microbiome’s demonstrable ability to elicit the expression of immunomodulatory chemokines and cytokines that enter the systemic circulation is evidently also capable of affecting cancer pathogenesis and response to therapy in other organs of the body (94, 9…”
BackgroundInteraction between microbiota and immunity in health and disease
Zheng, D., Liwinski, T., & Elinav, E. (2020) · Cell Research · doi:10.1038/s41422-020-0332-7 · Cited by 3,947
“microbiome in anticancer immune surveillance and immunotherapy may hold great promise in optimizing treatment responses in cancer patients, and has been reviewed elsewhere in greater detail.(13,196) Aside from the gut microbiome, most recent research begins to explore the role of intra-tumor tissue microbiome in regul…”
BackgroundCancer immunoediting and resistance to T cell-based immunotherapy
O’Donnell, J. S., Teng, M. W. L., & Smyth, M. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-018-0142-8 · Cited by 1,826
Fecal microbiota transplant promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients
Baruch, E. N., Youngster, I., Ben-Betzalel, G., Ortenberg, R., Lahat, A., Katz, L., Adler, K., Dick-Necula, D., Raskin, S., Bloch, N., et al. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb5920 · Cited by 1,757
Self-citationThe microbiome and human cancer
Sepich-Poore, G. D., Zitvogel, L., Straussman, R., Hasty, J., Wargo, J. A., & Knight, R. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abc4552 · Cited by 1,332
“Although most proposed cancer-microbe relationships focus on gut microbiota (30, 32, 33), recent studies also contentiously suggest the existence, metabolic activity, and functional importance of intratumoral microbiota using a combination of imaging, sequencing, and cultivation techniques and genetically engineered a…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gopalakrishnan, V., Helmink, B. A., Spencer, C. N., Reuben, A., & Wargo, J. A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wargo, Jennifer A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cancer Cell
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 570-580
- ISSN
- 1535-6108 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6529202
- OpenAlex
- W2797443945
- Semantic Scholar
- ef32f345e706cb0acf41fe704865c7dd29e8bef1
- Cited by
- 1,392
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 128 · 2025: 171 · 2024: 172 · 2023: 206 · 2022: 219 · 2021: 217 · 2020: 162 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 26
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Cancer Cell (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
- Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C-AACR-IRG-19-17)
- Melanoma Research Alliance (4022024)
- U.S. Department of Defense (W81XWH-16-1-0121)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Bacterial Cancer Therapy
- Keywords
- gut microbiota, cancer, immunity, cancer immunotherapy, microbiota modulation, precision medicine
- MeSH terms
- Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Bacteria, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Immunotherapy, Neoplasms, Monitoring, Immunologic, Probiotics, Precision Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
