The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gut Microbiome and Psychoneurological Symptoms Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Their Caregivers: A Pilot Study
Abstract
Purpose: Survivorship in colorectal cancer (CRC) is often accompanied by co-occurring psychoneurological symptoms (PNS, e.g., fatigue, depression, pain), which negatively affect quality of life. Caregivers of individuals with CRC also experience PNS due to caregiving burdens, amplifying distress across the dyad. PNS may be influenced by the activity of the gut microbes. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine gut microbiome diversity and composition, and their association with PNS in CRC patients and their caregivers. Methods: Baseline data from a technology-based dyadic intervention were included in this analysis. Eleven patients and eight caregivers provided stool samples and completed PROMIS measures of PNS at baseline. Gut microbiome profiles were assessed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Alpha and beta diversity metrics and differential abundance analyses were used to characterize the gut microbiome and examine its associations with PNS. Results: Patients exhibited significantly lower microbial alpha diversity than caregivers in the full sample ( p = 0.033). Dyadic comparisons identified 92 differentially abundant taxa, with patients showing depletion of short-chain fatty acid-producing taxa and enrichment of opportunistic taxa. Microbiome-symptom models revealed significant interactions by group (patient vs. caregiver) and taxa-level effects, with patients showing stronger positive associations between microbial alterations and higher PNS severity. Conclusions: CRC patients actively on chemotherapy demonstrated reduced diversity and depletion of beneficial taxa that may contribute to heightened PNS. Caregivers, despite healthier profiles, reported substantial symptom burden that were linked to gut microbiome features, highlighting dyadic interdependence and the potential for microbiome-targeted, dyadic interventions in survivorship care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gut microbiota modulation of chemotherapy efficacy and toxicity
Alexander, J. L., Wilson, I. D., Teare, J., Marchesi, J. R., Nicholson, J. K., & Kinross, J. M. (2017) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2017.20 · Cited by 970
Gut microbiota, inflammation and colorectal cancer
Sun, J., & Kato, I. (2016) · Genes & Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.gendis.2016.03.004 · Cited by 257 · cited 1×
“Reduced microbial diversity has been consistently linked to systemic in fl ammation, treatment toxicity, and poor cancer outcomes, suggesting a possible mechanistic pathway through which CRC and treatment may in fl uence symptom burden and overall health (Li et al., 2022; Sun & Kato, 2016).”
Gut inflammation in chronic fatigue syndrome
Lakhan, S. E., & Kirchgessner, A. (2010) · Nutrition & Metabolism · doi:10.1186/1743-7075-7-79 · Cited by 143
Graça Pereira, M., Figueiredo, A. P., & Fincham, F. D. (2012) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2011.06.006 · Cited by 111 · cited 1×
“These co-occurring symptoms can negatively affect patients ’ quality of life, treatment adherence, and long-term outcomes (Bailey et al., 2015; Graca Pereira et al., 2012).”
Research works printed but not linked: 49
- 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135424 · DOI
- 10.3390/cancers12092531 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11605-014-2645-7 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-023-08058-x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.05.009 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2012.29 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3322/caac.21398 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30095-0 · DOI
- 10.1080/1028415X.2023.2277970 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-011-1092-1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11739-023-03374-w · DOI · Paper page
- Eleuteri S., de Lima M. E. B., Falaschi P., Committee F. E. (2020). The psychological health of patients and their caregivers. In: Orthogeriatrics: The management of older patients with fragility fractures (pp. 223–237). Springer.
- 10.1097/NCC.0000000000001429 · DOI
- 10.1188/04.ONF.1161-1169 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10482-020-01474-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41591-019-0377-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/acel.14315 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02013 · DOI
- 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1118529 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12160-015-9743-y · DOI
- 10.1097/NCC.0b013e318233a811 · DOI
- 10.1002/pon.2100 · DOI
- 10.1200/EDBK_159514 · DOI
- Li S., Liu J., Zheng X., Ren L., Yang Y., Li W., Fu W., Wang J., Du G. (2022). Tumorigenic bacteria in colorectal cancer: Mechanisms and treatments. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 19(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0651 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-020-05946-4 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3390/cancers15174301 · DOI
- 10.1007/s42000-020-00236-4 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41577-024-01014-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3390/nu15061496 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-015-2995-z · DOI
- 10.1101/gr.096651.109 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-013-2069-z · DOI
- PROMIS. (2025). PROMIS® score cut points. https://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/promis/promis-score-cut-points
- 10.1016/j.cnur.2015.07.009 · DOI
- 10.1186/s41687-020-0181-7 · DOI
- 10.1128/mBio.01237-17 · DOI
- 10.3322/caac.21871 · DOI
- 10.3322/caac.21772 · DOI
- 10.1002/pon.4825 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00520-020-05739-9 · DOI
- 10.7554/eLife.00458 · DOI
- 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000943 · DOI
- 10.1002/pon.5382 · DOI
- 10.3389/fphys.2021.715506 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-022-12037-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bbi.2023.07.025 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11325-020-02246-3 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, Y., Barandouzi, Z. A., Houser, M. C., Xiao, C., Alese, O. B., Mathebula, S., Bai, J., Gbolahan, O., & Bruner, D. W.
- Venue
- Biological Research For Nursing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2026-04-24
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 525-537
- ISSN
- 1099-8004
- 1552-4175
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Oncology Nursing Foundation (2022 RE03)
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.
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.