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 301–400 of 673
Dicks, L. M. T. (2025) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms26146744 · Cited by 22
The Emerging Roles of Human Gut Microbiota in Gastrointestinal Cancer
Guo, Q., Qin, H., Liu, X., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Qin, T., Chang, L., & Zhang, W. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.915047 · Cited by 21
Elshaghabee, F. M. F., & Rokana, N. (2021) · Sustainable agriculture reviews · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58259-3_2 · Cited by 17
Leung, W. T., Tang, Z., Feng, Y., Guan, H., Huang, Z., & Zhang, W. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14245285 · Cited by 17
Shi, B., He, W., Su, G., Xu, X., & Shan, A. (2021) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani11020415 · Cited by 18
Watling, C. Z., Kelly, R. K., Murphy, N., Gunter, M. J., Piernas, C., Bradbury, K. E., Schmidt, J. A., Key, T. J., & Perez‐Cornago, A. (2023) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-22-3755 · Cited by 17
Response of gut microbiota and ileal transcriptome to inulin intervention in HFD induced obese mice
Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Mu, T., Cao, J., Liu, X., Yang, X., Ren, D., & Zhao, K. (2022) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.11.151 · Cited by 18
Li, T., Liu, R., Wang, T., Fu, Y., Qiao, M., Huang, X., & Song, L. (2023) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/ijfs.16695 · Cited by 18
The importance of food quality, gut motility, and microbiome in SIBO development and treatment
Knez, E., Kadac-Czapska, K., & Grembecka, M. (2024) · Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.nut.2024.112464 · Cited by 27
Larke, J. A., Heiss, B. E., Ehrlich, A. M., Taft, D. H., Raybould, H. E., Mills, D. A., & Slupsky, C. M. (2023) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-023-01624-9 · Cited by 19
Akritidou, T., Akkermans, S., Smet, C., Gaspari, S., Sharma, C., Matthews, E., & van Impe, J. F. M. (2023) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113292 · Cited by 19
Vegetarian diets and the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Bai, T., Peng, J., Zhu, X., & Wu, C. (2023) · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000002643 · Cited by 15
Puhlmann, M.-L., Jokela, R., van Dongen, K. C. W., Bui, T. P. N., Hangelbroek, R., Smidt, H., de Vos, W. M., & Feskens, E. J. M. (2022) · Gut Microbiome · doi:10.1017/gmb.2022.4 · Cited by 18
Williams, C. J., Torquati, L., Li, Z., Lea, R. A., Croci, I., Keating, E., Little, J. P., Eynon, N., & Coombes, J. S. (2021) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/nxab426 · Cited by 18
Leaky Gut Syndrome: An Interplay Between Nutrients and Dysbiosis
Marcari, A. B., Paiva, A. D., Simon, C. R., & dos Santos, M. E. S. M. (2025) · Current Nutrition Reports · doi:10.1007/s13668-025-00614-7 · Cited by 18
Lin, Z., Zhang, X., Wu, M., Ming, Y., Wang, X., Li, H., Huang, F., Gao, F., & Zhu, Y. (2023) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113421 · Cited by 17
Retnakumar, R. J., Nath, A. N., Nair, G. B., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2022) · Progress in molecular biology and translational science · doi:10.1016/bs.pmbts.2022.07.001 · Cited by 15
Macronutrients, microbiome and precision nutrition
O’Grady, J., & Shanahan, F. (2020) · Current Opinion in Gastroenterology · doi:10.1097/mog.0000000000000705 · Cited by 15
Carson, T. L., Buro, A. W., Miller, D. R., Pena, A. L., Ard, J. D., Lampe, J. W., Yi, N., Lefkowitz, E. J., William, V. D. P., Morrow, C. D., et al. (2022) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2022.106968 · Cited by 18
Mercurio, G., Giacco, A., Scopigno, N., Vigliotti, M., Goglia, F., Cioffi, F., & Silvestri, E. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17071214 · Cited by 16
Zhang, Z., Wu, Y., Zhou, S., Fu, P., & Yan, H. G. (2023) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms11092272 · Cited by 16
Essential Factors for a Healthy Microbiome: A Scoping Review
Grace-Farfaglia, P., Frazier, H., & Iversen, M. D. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19148361 · Cited by 14
Resistant starch: A promising ingredient and health promoter
Ribeiro, N. C. B. V., Ramer‐Tait, A. E., & Cazarin, C. B. B. (2022) · PharmaNutrition · doi:10.1016/j.phanu.2022.100304 · Cited by 13
Haas, M., Brandl, B., Neuhaus, K., Wudy, S. I., Kleigrewe, K., Hauner, H., & Skurk, T. (2025) · European Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1038/s41430-025-01636-8 · Cited by 22
Hill, E. B., Chen, L., Bailey, M. T., Khalsa, A. S., Maltz, R. M., Kelleher, K. J., Spees, C., Zhu, J., & Loman, B. R. (2022) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2022.2150502 · Cited by 14
Yang, M. J., Khoukaz, L., Qi, X., Kimchi, E. T., Staveley-O’Carroll, K. F., & Li, G. (2021) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines9121893 · Cited by 17
Gut microbiota in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and therapeutics
Pandey, H., Goel, P., Srinivasan, V. M., Tang, D. W. T., Wong, S. H., & Lal, D. (2025) · World Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.4254/wjh.v17.i6.106849 · Cited by 20
Probiotics maintain the gut microbiome homeostasis during Indian Antarctic expedition by ship
Srivastava, A. K., Rohil, V., Bhushan, B., Eslavath, M. R., Gupta, H., Chanda, S., Kumar, B., Varshney, R. K., & Ganju, L. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-97890-4 · Cited by 28
Definitions and Regulatory Perspectives of Dietary Fibers
Requena, M. C., Escobedo‐García, S., Salas-Tovar, J. A., Mora-Cura, Y. N., Chávez‐González, M. L., Castillo‐Reyes, F., Flores‐Gallegos, A. C., & Rodrı́guez-Herrera, R. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816495-2.00001-0 · Cited by 17
Misera, A., Kaczmarczyk, M., Łoniewski, I., Liśkiewicz, P., Podsiadło, K., Misiak, B., Skonieczna‐Żydecka, K., & Samochowiec, J. (2024) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107208 · Cited by 17
Guidelines for microbiome studies in renal physiology
Muralitharan, R. R., Snelson, M., Méric, G., Coughlan, M. T., & Marques, F. Z. (2023) · American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00072.2023 · Cited by 11
Ardalan, Z. S., Yao, C. K., Green, K., Probert, C. S., Gill, P. A., Rosella, S., Muir, J. G., Sparrow, M., & Gibson, P. R. (2023) · JGH Open · doi:10.1002/jgh3.13008 · Cited by 12
Schoonakker, M. P., van Peet, P. G., van den Burg, E. L., Numans, M. E., Ducarmon, Q. R., Pijl, H., & Wiese, M. (2024) · Nutrition Research Reviews · doi:10.1017/s0954422424000131 · Cited by 16
Rivero‐Mendoza, D., Caldwell, C. L., Cooper, H., Goldberg, J., Lamothe, M., Logan, S., Smith, E. B., Torna, E., Zeldman, J., & Dahl, W. J. (2022) · Nutrition in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1002/ncp.10921 · Cited by 13
Colorectal cancer and inulin supplementation: the good, the bad, and the unhelpful
Oliero, M., Alaoui, A. A., McCartney, C., & Santos, M. M. (2023) · Gastroenterology report · doi:10.1093/gastro/goae058 · Cited by 12
Inoüe, R., Suzuki, K. M., Takaoka, M., Narumi, M., & Naito, Y. (2025) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms13092068 · Cited by 15
Dietary patterns interfere with gut microbiota to combat obesity
Lou, X., Li, P., Luo, X., Lei, Z., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Gao, L., Xu, W., & Liu, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1387394 · Cited by 20
Structural and functional neuroimaging of the effects of the gut microbiome
Montoro, R. A., Singh, A. P., & Yu, J. J. (2022) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-021-08486-5 · Cited by 16
The Role of the Gastrointestinal Microbiome in Liver Disease
Shalaby, N., Samocha‐Bonet, D., Kaakoush, N. O., & Danta, M. (2023) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens12091087 · Cited by 11
Dietary legumes and gut microbiome: a comprehensive review
Özdemir, A., & Büyüktuncer, Z. (2024) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2024.2434725 · Cited by 14
Fueling the fire: colonocyte metabolism and its effect on the colonic epithelia
Martínez-Ruiz, M., Robeson, M. S., & Piccolo, B. D. (2025) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2025.2507701 · Cited by 15
Novel prebiotics and next-generation probiotics: opportunities and challenges
Hussein, L. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819815-5.00055-0 · Cited by 14
The association between dietary fiber intake and sarcopenia
Kao, C.-C., Yang, Z., & Chen, W. (2023) · Journal of Functional Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jff.2023.105437 · Cited by 13
Impacts of Habitual Diets Intake on Gut Microbial Counts in Healthy Japanese Adults
Sugimoto, T., Shima, T., Amamoto, R., Kaga, C., Kado, Y., Watanabe, O., Shiinoki, J., Iwazaki, K., Shigemura, H., Tsuji, H., et al. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12082414 · Cited by 12
Bouzid, Y. Y., Wilson, S. M. G., Alkan, Z., Stephensen, C. B., & Lemay, D. G. (2024) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.02.030 · Cited by 16
Trehan, S., Singh, G., Bector, G., et al. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.67010 · Cited by 12
Dietary Fiber as Prebiotics: A Mitigation Strategy for Metabolic Diseases
Gao, X., Hu, S., Liu, Y., Alwis, S. A. S. S. D., Yu, Y., Li, Z., Wang, Z., & Liu, J. (2025) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods14152670 · Cited by 15
Deng, M., Dan, L., Ye, S., Chen, X., Wang, X., Tian, L., & Chen, J. (2023) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.06.013 · Cited by 12
Черешнев, В. А., & Poznyakovskiy, V. M. (2020) · Food Industry · doi:10.29141/2500-1922-2020-5-3-1 · Cited by 11
Prebiotic-driven Gut Microbiota Dynamics: Enhancing Canine Health via Pet Food Formulation
Kumar, R., & Sharma, A. (2024) · International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management · doi:10.23910/1.2024.5359 · Cited by 11
Dietary Fiber Modulates the Window of Susceptibility to Clostridioides difficile Infection
Hewlett, K. K., PeBenito, A., Hecht, A. L., Tiffany, C. R., Tanes, C., Glover, R. C., Fawad, J. A., Friedman, E. S., Reynolds, J. C., Bittinger, K. L., et al. (2025) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.027 · Cited by 13
The Life-Long Role of Nutrition on the Gut Microbiome and Gastrointestinal Disease
Romano-Keeler, J., Zhang, J., & Sun, J. (2021) · Gastroenterology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2020.10.008 · Cited by 10
Revisiting the nutritional and functional value and health-promoting potential of Syzygium species
de Araújo, A. N. V., de Souza, E. L., Nascimento, D. D. S., Alves, J. M., Sampaio, K. B., da Silva, S. R. F., Alves, J. L. D. B., & de Albuquerque, T. M. R. (2024) · Journal of Functional Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jff.2024.106265 · Cited by 17
Clancy, A. K., Gunaratne, A. W., & Borody, T. J. (2021) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.653653 · Cited by 12
Inflammation mediated the effect of dietary fiber on depressive symptoms
Zhang, T., Cui, X.-M., Zhang, Y., Xie, T., Deng, Y.-J., Guo, F.-X., Wang, Q., Wu, Q., Dong, M.-H., & Luo, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.989492 · Cited by 11
Urbanization gradient, diet, and gut microbiota in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
Paulo, L. S., Bwire, G. M., Klipstein‐Grobusch, K., Kamuhabwa, A. A. R., Kwesigabo, G., Chillo, P., Asselbergs, F. W., & Lenters, V. C. (2023) · Frontiers in Microbiomes · doi:10.3389/frmbi.2023.1208166 · Cited by 15
Godos, J., Micek, A., Carota, G., Venuta, C. D., Mauro, A. D., Furnari, F., Balzano, R., Giorgio, J. D., Leonardi, A., Caruso, G., et al. (2025) · Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism · doi:10.1177/1973798x251360765 · Cited by 15
Maeta, A., Katsukawa, M., Inomoto, Y., Hayase, Y., & Takahashi, K. (2020) · Journal of Food Science · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.15392 · Cited by 11
Duncan, P. I., Aitio, O., Heiskanen, A., Niemelä, R., Saarinen, J., Helin, J., Porta, N., Fiaux, M., Moënnoz, D., Golliard, M., et al. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12072007 · Cited by 11
Sato, S., Chinda, D., Iino, C., Sawada, K., Mikami, T., Nakaji, S., Sakuraba, H., & Fukuda, S. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16040524 · Cited by 11
Capra, B. T., Hudson, S., Helder, M., Laskaridou, E., Johnson, A. L., Gilmore, C., Marinik, E. L., Hedrick, V. E., Savla, J. T., David, L. A., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107427 · Cited by 10
Gut microbiome and colorectal cancer: From pathogenesis to treatment
Lahouty, M., Fadaee, M., Aghaei, R., Alizadeh, F., Jafari, A., & Sharifi, Y. (2025) · Pathology - Research and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.prp.2025.156034 · Cited by 10
Vedantam, S., Graff, E., Khakoo, N. S., Khakoo, N. S., & Pearlman, M. Y. (2023) · Current Gastroenterology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11894-023-00861-0 · Cited by 11
Araújo, M. M., Vogado, C. D. O., Mendes, M. M., Gonçalves, V. S. S., & Botelho, P. B. (2021) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab109 · Cited by 10
Heiskanen, M. A., Aatsinki, A., Hakonen, P., Kartiosuo, N., Munukka, E., Lahti, L., Keskitalo, A., Huovinen, P., Niinikoski, H., Viikari, J. S. A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.01.008 · Cited by 11
Bester, A., O’Brien, M., Cotter, P. D., Dam, S. A., & Civai, C. (2023) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods12132480 · Cited by 11
Tuplin, E. W. N., Alukic, E., Lowry, D. E., Chleilat, F., Wang, W., Cho, N. A., Sampsell, K., Sales, K. M., Mayengbam, S., McCoy, K. D., et al. (2022) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.202101750r · Cited by 14
Li, X., Shi, Y., Wei, D., Ni, W., Zhu, N., & Yan, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1283626 · Cited by 9
Music-based interventions in the feeding environment on the gut microbiota of mice
Niu, J., Xu, H., Zeng, G., Wang, P., Raciheon, B., Nawaz, S., Zeng, Z., & Zhao, J. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33522-3 · Cited by 12
Singer, J., Tunbridge, M. J., Perkins, G. B., Salehi, T., Ying, T., Wu, H., Coates, P. T., & Chadban, S. J. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062747 · Cited by 10
Karl, J. P., Fagnant, H. S., Radcliffe, P. N., Wilson, M. A., Karis, A. J., Sayers, B., Wijeyesekera, A., Gibson, G. R., Lieberman, H. R., Giles, G. E., et al. (2025) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00109.2025 · Cited by 13
Resiliency of the Digestive System During Aging and the Impact of Diet
Sanders, L., Goltz, S. R., & Maki, K. C. (2023) · Nutrition Today · doi:10.1097/nt.0000000000000616 · Cited by 10
Wang, L., Wu, L., Qian, C., Ju, Y., Liu, T., Chen, Y., & Wang, X. (2022) · Metabolites · doi:10.3390/metabo12100969 · Cited by 10
Siragusa, N., Baldassari, G., Ferrario, L., Passera, L., Rota, B., Pavan, F., Santagata, F., Capasso, M., Londoni, C., Manfredi, G., et al. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17152496 · Cited by 9
Tang, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, X., & Geng, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.851820 · Cited by 9
Azuma, N., Saito, Y., Nishijima, T., Aoki, R., & Nishihira, J. (2023) · Bioscience Biotechnology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1093/bbb/zbad148 · Cited by 10
García-Mazcorro, J. F., Kawas, J. R., Licona‐Cassani, C., Mertens‐Talcott, S. U., & Noratto, G. D. (2020) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.10372 · Cited by 10
Tao, W., Yu, Y., Tan, D., Huang, X., Huang, J., Lin, C., & Yu, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2025.1603442 · Cited by 9
Zhai, X.-L., Tan, M., Wang, G.-P., Zhu, S.-X., & Shu, Q.-C. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-50423-7 · Cited by 8
Prebiotic potential of spent brewery grain – In vitro study
Kruk, M., Lalowski, P., Płecha, M., Ponder, A., Dudkiewicz, A., Zielińska, D., & Trząskowska, M. (2024) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141254 · Cited by 10
Cruciferous Vegetables, Bioactive Metabolites, and Microbiome for Breast Cancer Prevention
Ho, E., Wong, C. P., Bouranis, J. A., Shannon, J., & Zhang, Z. (2025) · Annual Review of Nutrition · doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-062222-024321 · Cited by 9
Understanding the role of the human gut microbiome in overweight and obesity
McBurney, M. I., & Cho, C. E. (2024) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15215 · Cited by 12
Using lifestyle interventions and the gut microbiota to improve PTSD symptoms
Sugden, S. G., & Merlo, G. (2024) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2024.1488841 · Cited by 11
Vacca, A., Brosolo, G., Marcante, S., Mora, S. D., Bulfone, L., Porto, A. D., Pagano, C., Catena, C., & Sechi, L. A. (2026) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu18020321 · Cited by 11
Williams, G. M., Tapsell, L. C., O'Brien, C. L., Tosh, S. M., Barrett, E. M., & Beck, E. J. (2020) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa128 · Cited by 9
Functional Nutrients to Ameliorate Neurogenic Muscle Atrophy
Moresi, V., Renzini, A., Cavioli, G., Seelaender, M. C. L., Coletti, D., Gigli, G., & Cedola, A. (2022) · Metabolites · doi:10.3390/metabo12111149 · Cited by 10
Pan, J., Lin, S. J., Qian, Q., Fu, S., & Liu, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2025.1621678 · Cited by 11
Selma‐Royo, M., Crispi, F., Castro‐Barquero, S., Casas, I., Larroya, M., Genero, M., Paulés, C., Benítez, L., Youssef, L., Pascal, R., et al. (2025) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.07.030 · Cited by 11
Griffin, L. E., Radhakrishnan, S., & Pellizzon, M. (2022) · Current Developments in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzac105 · Cited by 7
A gluten-free diet for endometriosis patients lacks evidence to recommend it
van Haaps, A. P., Brouns, F. J. P. H., Schreurs, A. M. F., Keszthelyi, D., Maas, J. W. M., & Mijatovic, V. (2024) · AJOG Global Reports · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100369 · Cited by 11
Gut microbiome-based noninvasive diagnostic model to predict acute coronary syndromes
Wang, J., Zhao, H., Xu, Q., Shi, Y., Cao, X., Ma, Y., Wang, M., Zhang, C., Luo, X., Lin, F., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1305375 · Cited by 10
Faubel, N., Blanco-Morales, V., Sentandreu, V., Barberá, R., & García‐Llatas, G. (2024) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2024.115570 · Cited by 9
Xu, B., Cao, J., Fu, J., Li, Z., Jin, M., Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2021) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuab018 · Cited by 8
Xu, D.-Q., Geng, J.-X., Gao, Z.-K., Fan, C.-Y., Zhang, B.-W., Han, X., He, L., Dai, L., Gao, S., Yang, Z., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177533 · Cited by 9
Effect of Fluoride on Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review
Yasin, M., Zohoori, F. V., Kumah, E. A., Subramanian, M., Dean, P., & Orr, C. H. (2025) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuae202 · Cited by 8
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
