The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Dysfunction of the gut microbiota is frequently reported as a manifestation of chronic diseases, and therefore presents as a modifiable risk factor in their development. Diet is a major regulator of the gut microbiota, and certain types of dietary fiber may modify bacterial numbers and metabolism, including short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) generation.Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to assess the effect of dietary fiber interventions on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults.Design A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials using culture and/or molecular microbiological techniques evaluating the effect of fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults. Meta-analyses via a random-effects model were performed on alpha diversity, prespecified bacterial abundances including Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., and fecal SCFA concentrations comparing dietary fiber interventions with placebo/low-fiber comparators.Results A total of 64 studies involving 2099 participants were included. Dietary fiber intervention resulted in higher abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.86; P < 0.00001) and Lactobacillus spp. (SMD: 0.22; 0.03, 0.41; P = 0.02) as well as fecal butyrate concentration (SMD: 0.24; 0.00, 0.47; P = 0.05) compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators. Subgroup analysis revealed that fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides led to significantly greater abundance of both Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. compared with comparators (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.002, respectively). No differences in effect were found between fiber intervention and comparators for α-diversity, abundances of other prespecified bacteria, or other SCFA concentrations.Conclusions Dietary fiber intervention, particularly involving fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides, leads to higher fecal abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. but does not affect α-diversity. Further research is required to better understand the role of individual fiber types on the growth of microbes and the overall gut microbial community. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42016053101.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
53 Own result · 24 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there was no difference in effect between the general fiber subgroup and comparators (SMD: 0.25; 95% CI: -0.16, 0.65; P = 0.24, I 2 = 86%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plain- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of dose-response showed dietary fiber led to significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators at all predefined dosages (≤5 g/d fiber SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.003, I 2 = 70%; 5-10 g/d SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83; P = 0.007, I 2 = 87%; >10 g/d SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.25; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
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.
In the paper
“In the supplement trials of accepted prebiotics, a significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance was reported after supplementation involving inulin (115) and human milk oligosaccharides (HMO) (62) compared with placebo at the end of intervention, whereas a significant within-group increase from baseline was detected after 10 g/d inulin supplementation (95).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [115] Blædel, 2016, A randomised, controlled, crossover study of the effect of diet on angiopoietin-like protein 4 (ANGPTL4) through modification of the gut microbiome, J Nutr Sci 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of dose-response showed dietary fiber led to significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators at all predefined dosages (≤5 g/d fiber SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.003, I 2 = 70%; 5-10 g/d SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83; P = 0.007, I 2 = 87%; >10 g/d SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.25; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, subgroup analysis showed fiber interventions delivered through supplements resulted in a significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/lowfiber controls (SMD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 83%), whereas no differences were found between food interventions and comparators (SMD: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.36, 0.76; P = 0.49, I 2 = 88%), although considerable”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plain- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of dose-response showed dietary fiber led to significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators at all predefined dosages (≤5 g/d fiber SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.003, I 2 = 70%; 5-10 g/d SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83; P = 0.007, I 2 = 87%; >10 g/d SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.25; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — 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 fiber intervention resulted in higher abundance of Bifidobacterium spp.(standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.86; P < 0.00001) and Lactobacillus spp.(SMD: 0.22; 0.03, 0.41; P = 0.02) as well as fecal butyrate concentration (SMD: 0.24; 0.00, 0.47; P = 0.05) compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plaindirectn = 2,099 ·- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis revealed that fructans and galactooligosaccharides led to significantly greater abundance of both Bifidobacterium spp.and Lactobacillus spp.compared with comparators (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.002, respectively).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences in effect were found between fiber intervention and comparators for α-diversity, abundances of other prespecified bacteria, or other SCFA concentrations.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plain- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis revealed that fructans and galactooligosaccharides led to significantly greater abundance of both Bifidobacterium spp.and Lactobacillus spp.compared with comparators (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.002, respectively).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
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. 35
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intervention doses ranged from 1.2 g/d to 50 g/d and treatment periods ranged from 5 d to 3 mo, with a median length of 3 wk.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, outcome data from 58 studies were suitable for meta-analysis; results from the following studies were unable to be statistically pooled and are presented narratively under their respective subheadings (59, 62, 69, 77-79, 83, 93, 95, 97, 101, 113, 115).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plain- 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 significant reduction in the αdiversity of fecal microbiota from baseline was detected in a trial involving flaxseed mucilage, measured by both the exponential of Shannon diversity index (-38,010; 95% CI: -64,473, -11,546; P = 0.007) as well as Simpson's inverse index (-17,515; 95% CI: -30,992, -4038; P = 0.014), although a between-group comparison was not reported (59).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Brahe, 2015, Dietary modulation of the gut microbiota – a randomised controlled trial in obese postmenopausal women, Br J Nutr 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fiber intervention led to significantly higher fecal concentrations of total SCFA, acetate, and butyrate compared with comparators when expressed per wet weight of feces.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 fiber had no effect on total SCFA concentration compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.11; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.27; P = 0.19), with similar intervention effects across studies (I 2 = 0%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plainn = 406- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, heterogeneity was considerable (I 2 = 80%), and was skewed by results from a single outlier study (66) (4.70; 95% CI: 3.69, 5.70).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences were found between fecal propionate and comparators (SMD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.22; P = 0.95), with moderate heterogeneity detected (I 2 = 61%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plainn = 677- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alpha-diversity was measured in 13 studies involving 393 participants (49,59,64,72,75,77,79,80,83,88,93,97,101).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
plainn = 393- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — 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 fiber had no effect on Roseburia spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.33; 95% CI: -0.14, 0.80; P = 0.17) although substantial heterogeneity was detected (I 2 = 70%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 189- 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 paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lactobacillus spp.abundance was measured in 28 studies involving 867 participants.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 867- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these 64 studies, 29 were parallel RCTs (52-80) and 35 were crossover RCTs .”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plain- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sensitivity analysis excluding this study produced a more homogeneous study population (I 2 = 49%), with a modest impact on the result (SMD: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.41; P = 0.02) (Figure 3).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 was no difference in fecal acetate after fiber intervention compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.28; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.63; P = 0.13), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 86).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plainn = 657- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 was no difference between dietary fiber and placebo/low-fiber comparators for F. prausnitzii abundance (SMD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.12, 0.39; P = 0.29), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 68%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 519- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 59 studies including 1896 participants reported the effect of dietary fiber on Bifidobacterium spp.abundance and, of these, 51 trials (1629 participants) reported data in a form suitable for meta-analysis (53-58, 60, 61, 63-68, 70, 71, 73-76, 81, 82, 84-94, 96-112, 114).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 1,896- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 fiber did not affect E. rectale abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: -0.26; 95% CI: -1.20, 0.67; P = 0.58) and substantial heterogeneity was detected (I 2 = 75%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 30- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This systematic review and meta-analysis found dietary fiber intervention had no effect on the diversity of the gut microbiota but did increase abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. as well as fecal butyrate concentration in healthy adults.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 fiber had no effect on R. bromii abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.45; P = 0.33), with no heterogeneity detected (I 2 = 0%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 76- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fecal butyrate was significantly higher after fiber intervention compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.47; P = 0.05), although considerable heterogeneity was present (I 2 = 70%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plaindirectn = 712 ·- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 64 included primary studies analyzed a total of 2099 participants.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plainn = 2,099- 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
“The Chao1 index was used to report α-diversity in 2 studies, although there were insufficient data available, precluding meta-analysis.Neither trial reported significant differences between fiber intervention and placebo or low-fiber control (49, 83).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Hooda, 2012, 454 pyrosequencing reveals a shift in fecal microbiota of healthy adult men consuming polydextrose or soluble corn fiber, J Nutr source
- Not checked yetcites [83] Baer, 2014, The metabolizable energy of dietary resistant maltodextrin is variable and alters fecal microbiota composition in adult men, J Nutr 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the diversity of the gut microbiota, abundances of other commonly measured bacterial groups, and concentrations of other fecal SCFAs were not significantly different compared with controls after dietary fiber intervention, it is worth noting that a short-term increase in fiber intake does not appear to be rate-limiting to these outcomes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 fiber intervention leads to a higher abundance of fecal Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., as well as higher fecal concentration of butyrate compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, candidate prebiotic interventions produced different effects on the abundance of these 2 genera, with significant effects demonstrated for Bifidobacterium but not Lactobacillus spp.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were differences in intervention effects based on trial design, with parallel design studies demonstrating stronger intervention effects and greater statistical heterogeneity compared with crossover design studies for several outcomes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accepted prebiotic fibers had an effect on the abundances of both Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp.whereas candidate prebiotic fibers had an effect on Bifidobacterium spp.abundance but not Lactobacillus spp.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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
“Specific bacteria shown to be more abundant in health compared with disease states include Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp.(2,7,14)”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marchesi, 2016, The gut microbiota and host health: a new clinical frontier, Gut source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Clemente, 2012, The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view, Cell source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Tojo, 2014, Intestinal microbiota in health and disease: role of bifidobacteria in gut homeostasis, World J Gastroenterol source
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fibers with fermentable characteristics are substrates for the microbial population in the colon, stimulating growth of specific organisms and leading to production of various metabolites including SCFA (19,29,31).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Flint, 2017, The impact of nutrition on intestinal bacterial communities, Curr Opin Microbiol source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Holscher, 2017, Dietary fiber and prebiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota, Gut Microbes source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Wong, 2006, Colonic health: fermentation and short chain fatty acids, J Clin Gastroenterol 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two review authors (DS and HMS) screened articles in a blinded, standardized manner, with disagreements in judgment resolved by consensus or a third reviewer (KLC).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Literature search
plain- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two reviewers (DS and HMS) independently extracted the data from eligible studies.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Data extraction and management
plain- 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
“Funnel plots were generated for outcomes in which ≥10 studies were included in meta-analysis (48) and reporting bias was detected by assessment of funnel plot asymmetry by visual inspection.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Statistical analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Sterne, 2008, Addressing reporting biases, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions source
plain- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The methods including the eligibility criteria, search strategy, extraction process, and analysis were prespecified and documented in a protocol that was published in the PROSPERO as CRD42016053101: http://www.crd.york. ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016053101.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > METHODS
plain- 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
“Indeed, some fibers can be further classified as “prebiotic” (e.g., fructans) if they have been shown to be selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit (32).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Gibson, 2017, Expert consensus document: the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics, Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 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.
In the paper
“Risk of bias was independently assessed by 2 reviewers (DS and HMS) using Cochrane methodology (45).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Data extraction and management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Higgins, 2008, Assessing risk of bias in included studies, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions source
plain- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual inspection found no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry, indicating reporting bias was unlikely (Supplemental Figures 234567).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Reporting bias
hedged- 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
“For instance, controlled feeding studies lasting 4 d to 3 wk found that despite significant changes to fiber intake, there was no effect on microbial diversity (35)(36)(37).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites (35)(36)(37)
plain- 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
“This systematic review was conducted in line with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement (41), and the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions (42).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > METHODS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Moher, 2015, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement, Systematic Reviews source
- Not checked yetcites [42] Higgins, 2011, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions
plain- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were adequately described by 26% (59-62, 70-72, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 94, 103, 113-115) and 16% (59,61,62,70,77,79,80,86,94,115) of studies, respectively.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Risk of bias
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.
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
“Therefore, the totality of findings here, including that microbial diversity was not compromised, support the favorable effects of dietary fiber on the gut microbiota.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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
“These results further support the favorable effects of dietary fiber and contribute to our understanding of its effect on the gut microbiota.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. 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
“This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- 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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, there were only a limited number of studies reporting the primary outcome of α-diversity, and a small proportion presenting data via the same diversity indexes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- 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
“Furthermore, included studies sampled feces as a surrogate for gut microbiota profile, and although feces are a common sampling route, the microbial composition of feces differs from the mucosal microbiota (10,11), which is in closer contact with the host and may be more important when considering the relation between microbiota and disease pathophysiology or outcomes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Fraher, 2012, Techniques used to characterize the gut microbiota: a guide for the clinician, Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zoetendal, 2002, Mucosa-associated bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract are uniformly distributed along the colon and differ from the community recovered from feces, Appl Environ Microbiol source
plain- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the limited number of taxa assessed in the review may not convey the overall effect elicited by dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition and metabolic outputs, although the selection of taxa was guided by the available literature.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Major strengths of this study include its robust design, comprehensive search strategies, and the use of 2 independent reviewers.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- 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.
The paper relies on this without support.
Dietary fiber is not digested by the host in the small intestine and reaches the colon where it is available to gut microbes.
“It is a key candidate in facilitating changes in the gut microbiota, as it escapes digestion by the host in the small intestine to pass into the colon where it is available to the microbial community.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Given that many of the response-associated bacteria identified in our cohort have known roles in starch degradation and fiber fermentation (25–29)”
From Dietary fiber and probiotics influence the gut microbiome and melanoma immunotherapy response (2021) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Fiber supplementation was found to enrich Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., whereas no effect was found on the other common SCFA producers except for increases in Roseburia spp. and F prausnitzii in parallel (rather than crossover) trials.”
From Influence of the Gut Microbiome, Diet, and Environment on Risk of Colorectal Cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [128]
In the citing paper
“Fiber supplementation increased the concentration of butyrate in fecal samples.128”
From Influence of the Gut Microbiome, Diet, and Environment on Risk of Colorectal Cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [128]
In the citing paper
“A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis observed the effect of fibre on the gut microbiota from 64 studies. Dietary fibre interventions, particularly fructans and galactooligosaccharides (GOS), were found to increase faecal abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species but did not affect alpha-diversity [37].”
From Effect of Diet on the Gut Microbiota: Rethinking Intervention Duration (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Prebiotic consumption has been associated with growth of Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and lactic acid bacteria. Conversely, fibres not classified as prebiotics, do not appear to affect the abundance of Bifidobacterium or Lactobacillus [37].”
From Effect of Diet on the Gut Microbiota: Rethinking Intervention Duration (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Soluble, fermentable fiber can increase microbial enzymatic capacity to degrade complex carbohydrates and produce health-promoting SCFAs, namely acetate, propionate, and butyrate (114, 118).”
From Diet and the Microbiota–Gut–Brain Axis: Sowing the Seeds of Good Mental Health (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, it is mostly accepted that greater diversity, richness, and stability, and a higher relative abundance of species associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) (eg, Faecalibacterium prausnitziii, Bacteroides spp, Roseburia spp, Bifidobacterium spp, and Lactobacillus spp) are hallmarks of a microbial community that is associated with better health outcomes.11”
From Effect of Fluoride on Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
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
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
“Two studies of 32 participants measured E. hallii abundance.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
“One study reported no within-group difference in E. hallii abundance (50,62), the other reported a significant decrease in E. hallii abundance compared with placebo (49).”
Citations
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
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
Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes
Wu, G. D., Chen, J., Hoffmann, C., Bittinger, K., Chen, Y.-Y., Keilbaugh, S. A., Bewtra, M., Knights, D., Walters, W. A., Knight, R., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1208344 · Cited by 6,513
Gibson, G. R., Hutkins, R., Sanders, M. E., Prescott, S. L., Reimer, R. A., Salminen, S. J., Scott, K., Stanton, C., Swanson, K. S., Cani, P. D., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75 · Cited by 5,634
De Filippo, C., Cavalieri, D., Di Paola, M., Ramazzotti, M., Poullet, J. B., Massart, S., Collini, S., Pieraccini, G., & Lionetti, P. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1005963107 · Cited by 5,579
Revised 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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Tarsilla, M. (2010) · Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · doi:10.56645/jmde.v6i14.284 · Cited by 5,232
den Besten, G., van Eunen, K., Groen, A. K., Venema, K., Reijngoud, D.-J., & Bakker, B. M. (2013) · Journal of Lipid Research · doi:10.1194/jlr.r036012 · Cited by 5,048
The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease
Round, J. L., & Mazmanian, S. K. (2009) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri2515 · Cited by 5,029
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Elmagarmid, 2014, Rayyan: a systematic reviews web app for exploring and filtering searches for eligible studies for Cochrane Reviews, Evidence-informed public health: opportunities and challenges. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium
- Zeng, 2015, Effects of whole grain-bean mixed staple food on intestinal microecology and metabolic parameters of obese people, Chinese J Clin Nutr, 23, 27
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 673
Review of the Relationships Between Human Gut Microbiome, Diet, and Obesity
Patloka, O., Komprda, T., & Franke, G. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16233996 · Cited by 50
Creedon, A. C., Dimidi, E., Hung, E. S., Rossi, M., Probert, C. S., Grassby, T., Blanco, J. M., Marchesi, J. R., Scott, S. M., Berry, S. E., et al. (2022) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqac265 · Cited by 34
Self-citationSaha, B., Rithi, A. T., Adhikary, S., Banerjee, A., Radhakrishnan, A., Duttaroy, A. K., & Pathak, S. (2024) · Nutrition and Cancer · doi:10.1080/01635581.2024.2367266 · Cited by 39
Fibre & fermented foods: differential effects on the microbiota-gut-brain axis
Schneider, E., Balasubramanian, R., Ferri, A., Cotter, P. D., Clarke, G. A., & Cryan, J. F. (2024) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s0029665124004907 · Cited by 37
Song, C., Kim, N., Nam, R. H., Choi, S. I., Jang, J. Y., Kim, E. H., Choi, J., Choi, Y., Yoon, H., Lee, S. M., et al. (2023) · Gut and Liver · doi:10.5009/gnl230385 · Cited by 30
Kowalska, K., Brodowski, J., Pokorska‐Niewiada, K., & Szczuko, M. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12102986 · Cited by 33
Biomarker-Guided Dietary Supplementation: A Narrative Review of Precision in Personalized Nutrition
Pokushalov, E., Ponomarenko, A., Shrainer, E., Kudlay, D. A., & Miller, R. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16234033 · Cited by 39
Forteza, F., Bourdeau‐Julien, I., Nguyen, G. Q. H., Agudelo, F. A. G., Rochefort, G., Parent, L., Rakotoarivelo, V., Feutry, P., Martin, C., Perron, J., et al. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-10757-0 · Cited by 30
Nagano, T., Higashimura, Y., Nakano, M., Nishiuchi, T., & Lelo, A. P. (2025) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.139962 · Cited by 30
Pérez, M., Ntemiri, A., Tan, H., Harris, H. M. B., Roager, H. M., Ribière, C., & O’Toole, P. W. (2021) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2021.1919464 · Cited by 29
Rocks, T., West, M. L., Hockey, M., Aslam, H., Lane, M. M., Loughman, A., Jacka, F. N., & Ruusunen, A. A. (2020) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110201 · Cited by 30
Kim, Y., Hong, M., Kim, S., Shin, W.-Y., & Kim, J. (2020) · Menopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000001711 · Cited by 25
Ericson, U., Brunkwall, L., Hellstrand, S., Nilsson, P. M., & Orho‐Melander, M. (2019) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/nxz293 · Cited by 30
Hussain, S. K., Dong, T. S., Agopian, V. G., Pisegna, J. R., Durazo, F. A., Enayati, P. J., Sundaram, V., Benhammou, J. N., Noureddin, M., Choi, G., et al. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12051395 · Cited by 29
Gut Microbiota for Esophageal Cancer: Role in Carcinogenesis and Clinical Implications
Zhou, J., Sun, S., Luan, S., Xiao, X., Yang, Y., Mao, C., Chen, L., Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., & Yuan, Y. (2021) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.717242 · Cited by 35
Soleimanpour, S., Abavisani, M., Khoshrou, A., & Sahebkar, A. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.09.009 · Cited by 38
Diet associations in endometriosis: a critical narrative assessment with special reference to gluten
Brouns, F. J. P. H., van Haaps, A. P., Keszthelyi, D., Venema, K., Bongers, M. Y., Maas, J. W. M., & Mijatovic, V. (2023) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1166929 · Cited by 39
Systematic Review of the Effects of Oat Intake on Gastrointestinal Health
Valido, E. M., Stoyanov, J. V., Bertolo, A., Hertig-Godeschalk, A., Zeh, R., Flueck, J. L., Minder, B., Stojic, S., Metzger, B. T., Bussler, W. W., et al. (2021) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/nxab245 · Cited by 29
Jia, L., Cao, M., Chen, H., Zhang, M., Dong, X., Ren, Z., Sun, J. T., & Pan, L. (2020) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.9b07701 · Cited by 27
Zhang, X., Li, Q., Han, N., Song, C., Lin, Y., Zhang, L., Ren, D., Zhao, Y., Yang, X., & Li, T. (2023) · Food & Function · doi:10.1039/d3fo04215d · Cited by 28
Matcha Green Tea: Chemical Composition, Phenolic Acids, Caffeine and Fatty Acid Profile
Kika, J., Jakubczyk, K., Ligenza, A., Maciejewska, D., Szymczykowska, K., & Janda, K. (2024) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods13081167 · Cited by 42
Khomich, M., Måge, I., Rud, I., & Berget, I. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259973 · Cited by 34
Remes-Troche, J. M., Taboada-Liceaga, H. A., Gill, S. K., Amieva‐Balmori, M., Rossi, M., Hernández‐Ramírez, G., García-Mazcorro, J. F., & Whelan, K. (2020) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1111/nmo.13986 · Cited by 29
Self-citationEffects of diets, foods and nutrients on immunity: Implications for COVID‐19?
Lockyer, S. (2020) · Nutrition Bulletin · doi:10.1111/nbu.12470 · Cited by 28
Roles of the gut microbiota in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection
Liu, Y., Kuang, D., Li, D., Yang, J., Yan, J., Xia, Y., Zhang, F., & Cao, H. (2022) · Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.cytogfr.2022.01.007 · Cited by 30
Ruiz‐Aceituno, L., Esteban-Torres, M., James, K., Moreno, F. J., & van Sinderen, D. (2019) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108476 · Cited by 28
Leão, L. L., Miri, S., & Hammami, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2024.101173 · Cited by 29
Short-term dietary fiber interventions produce consistent gut microbiome responses across studies
Rodriguez, C. I., Isobe, K., & Martiny, J. B. H. (2024) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.00133-24 · Cited by 32
Bouranis, J. A., Beaver, L. M., Wong, C. P., Choi, J., Hamer, S., Davis, E. W., Brown, K., Jiang, D., Sharpton, T. J., Stevens, J. F., et al. (2023) · Molecular Nutrition & Food Research · doi:10.1002/mnfr.202300286 · Cited by 28
Steinert, R. E., Rehman, A., Sadabad, M. S., Milanese, A., Wittwer, J., Burton, J. P., & Spooren, A. (2025) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2025.2477816 · Cited by 32
Ni, Y., Zheng, A., Hu, Y., Rong, N., Zhang, Q., Long, W., Yang, S., Nan, S., Zhang, L., Zhou, K., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.959703 · Cited by 28
Gut Microbiota: A Potential Target for Cancer Interventions
Zhou, H., Yuan, Y., Wang, H., Xiang, W., Li, S., Zheng, H., Wen, Y., Yang, M., Chen, L., & Zhou, J. (2021) · Cancer Management and Research · doi:10.2147/cmar.s328249 · Cited by 27
Ma, E., Maskarinec, G., Lim, U., Boushey, C. J., Wilkens, L. R., Setiawan, V. W., Marchand, L. L., Randolph, T. W., Jenkins, I., Curtis, K. R., et al. (2021) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114521002968 · Cited by 26
Bratlie, M., Hagen, I. V., Helland, A., Erchinger, F., Midttun, Ø., Ueland, P. M., Rosenlund, G., Sveier, H., Mellgren, G., Hausken, T., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-020-02417-8 · Cited by 26
Burton, T. C. J., Lv, N., Tsai, P., Bernabé, B. P., Tussing-Humphreys, L. M., Xiao, L., Pandey, G. N., Wu, Y., Ajilore, O., & Ma, J. (2023) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.01.018 · Cited by 28
Yang, F., Wei, J.-D., Lu, Y., Sun, Y.-L., Wang, Q., & Zhang, R. (2019) · Journal of Functional Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jff.2019.103423 · Cited by 25
Cai, X., Cai, X., Xie, Q., Xiao, X., Li, T., Zhou, T., & Sun, H. (2025) · Neural Regeneration Research · doi:10.4103/nrr.nrr-d-24-00917 · Cited by 27
Dicks, L. M. T. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms251910634 · Cited by 26
Jadhav, A., Bajaj, A., Yang, X. J., Markandey, M., Ahuja, V., & Kashyap, P. (2023) · Annual Review of Nutrition · doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-061121-094908 · Cited by 29
Ahmad, A., Mahmood, N., Raza, M. A., Mushtaq, Z., Saeed, F., Afzaal, M., Hussain, M., Amjad, H., & Al-Awadi, H. M. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29495 · Cited by 32
Miao, M., Shi, Y., Li, Y., Jiang, Z., Liu, J., & Yang, S. (2021) · Journal of Functional Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jff.2021.104705 · Cited by 25
Gut microbiome: A possible common therapeutic target for treatment of atherosclerosis and cancer
Wu, W., Ivanova, E. A., & Orekhov, A. N. (2020) · Seminars in Cancer Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.06.017 · Cited by 26
Assessment of the gut bacterial microbiome and metabolome of girls and women with Rett Syndrome
Thapa, S., Venkatachalam, A., Khan, N., Naqvi, M., Balderas, M. A., Runge, J. K., Haag, A. M., Hoch, K. M., Glaze, D. G., Luna, R. A., et al. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251231 · Cited by 23
Manipulation of the diet–microbiota–brain axis in Alzheimer’s disease
Lee, D. D., Lee, V. M. ‐., & Hur, S. K. (2022) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.1042865 · Cited by 27
Review article: the impact of diet on ileoanal pouch function and on the pathogenesis of pouchitis
Ardalan, Z. S., Yao, C. K., Sparrow, M., & Gibson, P. R. (2020) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.16085 · Cited by 25
Torres-Maravilla, E., Méndez-Trujillo, V., Hernández-Delgado, N. C., Bermúdez‐Humarán, L. G., & Reyes-Pavón, D. (2022) · Fermentation · doi:10.3390/fermentation8030123 · Cited by 26
Relationships between dietary diversity and gut microbial diversity in the elderly
Amamoto, R., Shimamoto, K., Suwa, T., Park, S., Matsumoto, H., Shimizu, K., Katto, M., Makino, H., Matsubara, S., & Aoyagi, Y. (2022) · Beneficial Microbes · doi:10.3920/bm2022.0054 · Cited by 22
Madsen, M. T. B., Landberg, R., Nielsen, D. S., Zhang, Y., Anneberg, O. M., Lauritzen, L., & Damsgaard, C. T. (2023) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.10.025 · Cited by 27
Lee, J. E., Walton, D. M., O’Connor, C. P., Wammes, M., Burton, J. P., & Osuch, E. A. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms23126643 · Cited by 27
Systematically-designed mixtures outperform single fibers for gut microbiota support
Cantu-Jungles, T. M., Agamennone, V., van den Broek, T. J., Schuren, F. H. J., & Hamaker, B. R. (2024) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2024.2442521 · Cited by 28
Baba, Y., Tsuge, D., & Aoki, R. (2025) · Bioscience Biotechnology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1093/bbb/zbaf071 · Cited by 31
Karim, M. R., Iqbal, S., Mohammad, S., Lee, J. H., Jung, D.-H., Mathiyalagan, R., Yang, D., Yang, D. U., & Yang, D. U. (2023) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2023.127346 · Cited by 27
Effect of Resistant Dextrin on Intestinal Gas Homeostasis and Microbiota
Barber, C., Sabater, C., Ávila‐Gálvez, M. Á., Vallejo, F., Bendezu, R. A., Guérin‐Deremaux, L., Guarner, F., Espı́n, J. C., Margollés, A., & Azpiroz, F. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14214611 · Cited by 21
Xu, D., Pan, D., Liu, H., Yang, C., Yang, X., Wang, X., Liu, F., Feng, M., Wu, Q., Shen, Y., et al. (2022) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111701 · Cited by 24
Gut health, the microbiome and dietary choices: An exploration of consumer perspectives
Williams, G. M., Tapsell, L. C., & Beck, E. J. (2022) · Nutrition & Dietetics · doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12769 · Cited by 22
Yu, X., Liang, X., Kunchen, H. A. N., Shi, F., Meng, N., & Li, Q. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14153181 · Cited by 19
Ren, M., MengYun, L., Lu, L.-Q., Liu, Y.-S., An, F., Huang, K., & Fu, Z. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14193931 · Cited by 21
Jennings, A., Kuhn, T. E., Bondonno, N. P., Waniek, S., Bang, C., Franke, A., Kassubek, J., Müller, H., Both, M., Weber, K. S., et al. (2023) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.11.001 · Cited by 22
Zheng, W., Wang, K., Sun, Y., & Kuo, S. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205055 · Cited by 18
Hedin, C. R. H., McCarthy, N. E., Louis, P., Farquharson, F. M., McCartney, S. A., Stagg, A. J., Lindsay, J. O., & Whelan, K. (2021) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2021.05.033 · Cited by 22
Self-citationMitchell, S. M., McKenzie, E. J., Mitchell, C. J., Milan, A. M., Zeng, N., D’Souza, R. F., Ramzan, F., Sharma, P., Rettedal, E. A., Knowles, S. O., et al. (2020) · Journal of Nutritional Science · doi:10.1017/jns.2020.15 · Cited by 23
Gravity, Microgravity and Artificial Gravity: Physiological Effects, Implementation and Applications
Goswami, N., Blaber, A. P., Valenti, G., Hinghofer-Szalkay, H., Evans, J., Bailey, D. M., Vernikos, J., Choukér, A., Green, D. A., White, O., et al. (2026) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00055.2024 · Cited by 25
Associations of Blautia Genus With Early-Life Events and Later Phenotype in the NutriHS
Freitas, R. G. B. D. O. N., Vasques, A. C. J., Fernandes, G. D. R., Ribeiro, F. B., Solar, I., Barbosa, M., de Almeida-Pititto, B., Geloneze, B., & Ferreira, S. R. G. (2022) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.838750 · Cited by 21
Safety and Modulatory Effects of Humanized Galacto-Oligosaccharides on the Gut Microbiome
Arnold, J. W., Whittington, H. D., Dagher, S. F., Roach, J. M., Azcárate-Peril, M. A., & Bruno-Bárcena, J. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.640100 · Cited by 20
Gut microbiome associated dysbiosis: Limited regimens and expanding horizons of phage therapy
Singha, B., Rawat, B. S., Venkataraman, R., Nair, T., Rosenn, E. H., & Soni, V. (2023) · Aspects of Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amolm.2023.100029 · Cited by 23
Frontiers in antibiotic alternatives for Clostridioides difficile infection
Phanchana, M., Harnvoravongchai, P., Wongkuna, S., Phetruen, T., Phothichaisri, W., Panturat, S., Pipatthana, M., Charoensutthivarakul, S., Chankhamhaengdecha, S., & Janvilisri, T. (2021) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v27.i42.7210 · Cited by 23
Dietary fiber as a wide pillar of colorectal cancer prevention and adjuvant therapy
Pedrosa, L. D. F., & Fabi, J. P. (2023) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2164245 · Cited by 21
Fecal microbiota transplantation for ulcerative colitis—where to from here?
Borody, T. J., & Clancy, A. K. (2019) · Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.21037/tgh.2019.06.04 · Cited by 19
Hwang, D., Chong, E. G., Li, Y., Li, Y., & Roh, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2025.1553655 · Cited by 29
Yamaguchi, T., Nomura, A., Matsubara, A., Hisada, T., Tamada, Y., Mikami, T., & Ishida, M. (2022) · Allergology International · doi:10.1016/j.alit.2022.06.005 · Cited by 23
Thirion, F., Silva, K. D., Oñate, F. P., Alvarez, A., Thabuis, C., Pons, N., Berland, M., Chatelier, E. L., Galleron, N., Levenez, F., et al. (2022) · Molecular Nutrition & Food Research · doi:10.1002/mnfr.202101091 · Cited by 22
Liu, S., Wu, M., Wang, Y., Xiang, L., Luo, G., Lin, Q., & Xiao, L. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15143147 · Cited by 21
Components of the Fiber Diet in the Prevention and Treatment of IBD—An Update
Ferenc, K., Jarmakiewicz-Czaja, S., & Filip, R. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15010162 · Cited by 21
Relandscaping the Gut Microbiota with a Whole Food: Dose–Response Effects to Common Bean
Lutsiv, T., McGinley, J. N., Neil, E. S., Weir, T. L., Foster, M. T., & Thompson, H. J. (2022) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods11081153 · Cited by 24
Diet-gut microbial interactions influence cancer immunotherapy
Wang, X., & Geng, S.-T. (2023) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1138362 · Cited by 21
Cosier, D., Lambert, K., Neale, E. P., Probst, Y., & Charlton, K. E. (2024) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuae002 · Cited by 27
Inulin: a multifaceted ingredient in pharmaceutical sciences
Tıwarı, R., Sethi, P., Rudrangi, S. R. S., Padarthi, P. K., Kumar, V., Rudrangi, S., & Vaghela, K. (2024) · Journal of Biomaterials Science Polymer Edition · doi:10.1080/09205063.2024.2384276 · Cited by 20
Watling, C. Z., Wojt, A., Florio, A. A., Butera, G., Albanes, D., Weinstein, S. J., Huang, W., Parisi, D., Zhang, X., Graubard, B. I., et al. (2024) · Hepatology · doi:10.1097/hep.0000000000000819 · Cited by 21
In vitro Gastrointestinal Models for Prebiotic Carbohydrates: A Critical Review
Hernández‐Hernández, O. (2019) · Current Pharmaceutical Design · doi:10.2174/1381612825666191011094724 · Cited by 19
André, P., de Barros, J.-P. P., Merle, B. M. J., Samieri, C., Helmer, C., Delcourt, C., & Féart, C. (2021) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqab126 · Cited by 20
Haskey, N., Gold, S. L., Faith, J. J., & Raman, M. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15051080 · Cited by 19
da Silva, B. C., Ramos, G. P., Barros, L. L., RAMOS, A. F. P., Domingues, G. R. D. S., Chinzon, D., & Passos, M. D. C. F. (2025) · Arquivos de Gastroenterologia · doi:10.1590/s0004-2803.24612024-107 · Cited by 20
Wan, P., Liu, H., Ding, M., Zhang, K., Shang, Z., Wang, Y., & Ma, Y. (2023) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126881 · Cited by 20
Gut microbiota in cancer initiation, development and therapy
Zhang, R., Zhang, X., Lau, H. C.-H., & Yu, J. Q. (2024) · Science China Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11427-024-2831-x · Cited by 19
Dietary fiber ameliorates lead‐induced gut microbiota disturbance and alleviates neuroinflammation
Yao, M., Shao, X., Wei, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, H., & Xu, F. (2022) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.12074 · Cited by 20
Bartsch, M., Vital, M., Woltemate, S., Bouwman, F. G., Berkemeyer, S., Hahn, A., & Müller, M. (2025) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.034 · Cited by 25
Nutrient acquisition of gut microbiota: Implications for tumor immunity
Wang, Y., Huang, J., Tong, H., Jiang, Y., Yu, J., & Ma, X. (2025) · Seminars in Cancer Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2025.06.003 · Cited by 19
Kang, J. W., Tang, X., Walton, C. J., Brown, M. J., Brewer, R. A., Maddela, R. L., Zheng, J. J., Agus, J., & Zivkovic, A. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.908534 · Cited by 19
Gut microbiota influence frailty syndrome in older adults: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies
Wang, X., Fan, L., Meng, C., Wang, Y., Deng, L.-E., Yuan, Z., Zhang, J., Li, Y., & Lv, S. (2023) · Biogerontology · doi:10.1007/s10522-023-10082-7 · Cited by 20
Dahl, W. J., Hung, W., Ford, A., Suh, J. H., Auger, J., Nagulesapillai, V., & Wang, Y. (2020) · Nutrition Research · doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2020.05.004 · Cited by 18
Matsuoka, T., Hosomi, K., Park, J., Goto, Y., Nishimura, M., Maruyama, S., Murakami, H., Konishi, K., Miyachi, M., Kawashima, H., et al. (2022) · BMC Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s40795-022-00500-3 · Cited by 18
Soluble fibre as a treatment for inflammation in asthma
Williams, L. M., Scott, H. A., & Wood, L. G. (2019) · Journal of Nutrition & Intermediary Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.jnim.2019.100108 · Cited by 18
Alyousif, Z., Rivero‐Mendoza, D., Auger, J., Carvalho, V. D., Amos, S., Sims, C. A., & Dahl, W. J. (2020) · Current Developments in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzaa005 · Cited by 18
Bixby, M., Gennings, C., Malecki, K. M. C., Sethi, A. K., Safdar, N., Peppard, P. E., & Eggers, S. I. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14163407 · Cited by 20
Future foods, dietary factors and healthspan
Li, K., Wang, C., Wang, Y., Fu, L., & Zhang, N. (2023) · Journal of Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jfutfo.2022.12.001 · Cited by 20
Vigneswaran, J., & Shogan, B. D. (2020) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11605-020-04694-4 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- So, D., Whelan, K., Rossi, M., Morrison, M., Holtmann, G., Kelly, J. T., Shanahan, E. R., Staudacher, H. M., & Campbell, K. L.
- Affiliations
- Bond University (AU)
- King's College London (GB)
- Translational Research Institute (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Katrina L
- ORCID
- Venue
- The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 965-983
- ISSN
- 0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2790004059
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 132
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 12
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
- Keywords
- dietary fiber, gut microbiota composition, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, short-chain fatty acids, butyrate, fructans, galactooligosaccharides, alpha diversity, healthy adults, dietary intervention, prebiotics, gut dysbiosis, chronic disease risk factors, fecal microbiota, bacterial abundance
- MeSH terms
- Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Adult, Bacteria, Dietary Fiber, Food Analysis, Humans
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 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
