Search

Background: A central goal of modern evidence-based medicine is the development of simple and easy to use tools that help clinicians integrate quantitative information into medical decision-making. The Bayesian Pre-test/Post-test Probability (BPP) framework is arguably the most well known of such tools and provides a formal approach to quantify diagnostic uncertainty given the result of a medical test or the presence of a clinical sign. Yet, clinical decision-making goes beyond quantifying diagnostic uncertainty and requires that that uncertainty be balanced against the various costs and benefits associated with each possible decision. Despite increasing attention in recent years, simple and flexible approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making have remained elusive., Methods: We extend the BPP framework using concepts of Bayesian Decision Theory. By integrating cost, we can expand the BPP framework to allow for clinical decision-making., Results: We develop a simple quantitative framework for binary clinical decisions (e.g., action/inaction, treat/no-treat, test/no-test). Let p be the pre-test or post-test probability that a patient has disease. We show that r ∗ = ( 1 - p ) / p represents a critical value called a decision boundary. In terms of the relative cost of under- to over-acting, r ∗ represents the critical value at which action and inaction are equally optimal. We demonstrate how this decision boundary can be used at the bedside through case studies and as a research tool through a reanalysis of a recent study which found widespread misestimation of pre-test and post-test probabilities among clinicians., Conclusions: Our approach is so simple that it should be thought of as a core, yet previously overlooked, part of the BPP framework. Unlike prior approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making, our approach requires little more than a hand-held calculator, is applicable in almost any setting where the BPP framework can be used, and excels in situations where the costs and benefits associated with a particular decision are patient-specific and difficult to quantify., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The human gut teems with a diverse ecosystem of microbes, yet non-bacterial portions of that community are overlooked in studies of metabolic diseases firmly linked to gut bacteria. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is associated with compositional shifts in the gut bacterial microbiome and the mycobiome, the fungal portion of the microbiome. However, whether T2D and/or metformin treatment underpins fungal community changes is unresolved. To differentiate these effects, we curated a gut mycobiome cohort spanning 1,000 human samples across five countries and validated our findings in a murine experimental model. We use Bayesian multinomial logistic normal models to show that T2D and metformin both associate with shifts in the relative abundance of distinct gut fungi. T2D is associated with shifts in the Saccharomycetes and Sordariomycetes fungal classes, while the genera Fusarium and Tetrapisipora most consistently associate with metformin treatment. We confirmed the impact of metformin on individual gut fungi by administering metformin to healthy mice. Thus, metformin and T2D account for subtle, but significant and distinct variation in the gut mycobiome across human populations. This work highlights for the first time that metformin can confound associations of gut fungi with T2D and warrants the need to consider pharmaceutical interventions in investigations of linkages between metabolic diseases and gut microbial inhabitants., Importance: This is the largest to-date multi-country cohort characterizing the human gut mycobiome, and the first to investigate potential perturbations in gut fungi from oral pharmaceutical treatment. We demonstrate the reproducible effects of metformin treatment on the human and murine gut mycobiome and highlight a need to consider metformin as a confounding factor in investigations between type 2 diabetes mellitus and the gut microbial ecosystem., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The prevalence of chronic, non-communicable diseases has risen sharply in recent decades, especially in industrialized countries. While several studies implicate the microbiome in this trend, few have examined the evolutionary history of industrialized microbiomes. Here we sampled 235 ancient dental calculus samples from individuals living in Great Britain (∼2200 BCE to 1853 CE), including 127 well-contextualized London adults. We reconstructed their microbial history spanning the transition to industrialization. After controlling for oral geography and technical biases, we identified multiple oral microbial communities that coexisted in Britain for millennia, including a community associated with Methanobrevibacter, an anaerobic Archaea not commonly prevalent in the oral microbiome of modern industrialized societies. Calculus analysis suggests that oral hygiene contributed to oral microbiome composition, while microbial functions reflected past differences in diet, specifically in dairy and carbohydrate consumption. In London samples, Methanobrevibacter-associated microbial communities are linked with skeletal markers of systemic diseases (for example, periostitis and joint pathologies), and their disappearance is consistent with temporal shifts, including the arrival of the Second Plague Pandemic. This suggests pre-industrialized microbiomes were more diverse than previously recognized, enhancing our understanding of chronic, non-communicable disease origins in industrialized populations., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

By applying Differential Set Analysis (DSA) to sequence count data, researchers can determine whether groups of microbes or genes are differentially enriched. Yet sequence count data suffer from a scale limitation: these data lack information about the scale (i.e., size) of the biological system under study, leading some authors to call these data compositional (i.e., proportional). In this article, we show that commonly used DSA methods that rely on normalization make strong, implicit assumptions about the unmeasured system scale. We show that even small errors in these scale assumptions can lead to positive predictive values as low as 9%. To address this problem, we take three novel approaches. First, we introduce a sensitivity analysis framework to identify when modeling results are robust to such errors and when they are suspect. Unlike standard benchmarking studies, this framework does not require ground-truth knowledge and can therefore be applied to both simulated and real data. Second, we introduce a statistical test that provably controls Type-I error at a nominal rate despite errors in scale assumptions. Finally, we discuss how the impact of scale limitations depends on a researcher's scientific goals and provide tools that researchers can use to evaluate whether their goals are at risk from erroneous scale assumptions. Overall, the goal of this article is to catalyze future research into the impact of scale limitations in analyses of sequence count data; to illustrate that scale limitations can lead to inferential errors in practice; yet to also show that rigorous and reproducible scale reliant inference is possible if done carefully., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 McGovern et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)