ArticleGut microbes reports2026
Investigating the gut microbiota in advanced heart failure and cardiac cachexia.
Article in Gut microbes reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac cachexia (CC) is associated with advanced heart failure (AHF), characterized by unintentional weight loss (UWL) of fat/muscle. It is exacerbated by right ventricular systolic dysfunction (RVSD). The potential pathogenic role of gut microbiota (GM) changes has not been investigated in CC. We aimed to explore this. Patients with AHF with or without CC/UWL, stable chronic heart failure (HF), and healthy controls (HCs) were recruited following national ethical approval. Fecal bacterial DNA was extracted, quantified, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed. GM composition, alpha, and beta diversity were compared between CC/UWL-AHF and the rest of the cohort (ROC). The secondary analyses compared AHF, HF, and HCs, and patients with and without RVSD. Sixty-seven patients returned samples, including 14 with CC/UWL-AHF. No taxonomic differences were observed between CC/UWL-AHF and ROC. A weak trend toward compositional differences was observed (beta diversity R² = 0.016,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.