MedicinemedRxiv

Ranked by formulaVerdict: Notable

Persistent gut microbiota alterations after ischemic stroke are modifiable by probiotic intervention

The gut-brain axis has emerged as a critical modulator in neurological diseases, including stroke.

By Melton, Sorbie, Aho +7

Score█████░░░░░5.0

Caveats

  • Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the originalPDF

Abstract

The gut-brain axis has emerged as a critical modulator in neurological diseases, including stroke. While acute post-stroke dysbiosis is well established, it remains unclear whether these alterations persist long-term and can be therapeutically modulated. This study addresses this gap through integrated metagenomic and metabolomic profiling in two independent clinical stroke cohorts, complemented by experimental models. Experimental stroke induced persistent changes in gut microbiota composition and altered short-chain fatty acid profiles. In patients, microbiota composition remained distinct from controls up to three months after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), accompanied by persistent reductions in propionic and valeric acid and reduced abundance of Prevotella-associated microbial signatures. We performed a randomized, double-blind interventional trial (PRISE) testing a multispecies probiotic versus placebo, using household members as additional controls. Probiotic intervention led to microbiome compositional changes with increased abundance of beneficial taxa and significantly improved functional recovery. The tested probiotic strains showed anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects in vitro. These findings suggest that targeted modulation of the microbiome represents a promising therapeutic avenue to improve chronic stroke recovery, warranting validation in larger Phase III clinical trials.

P. Melton, A. Sorbie, V. T. E. Aho, C. Haslinger, M. Zimmermann, W. Marut, C. Jaeger, P. Wilmes, C. Benakis, A. Liesz

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage2 / 5
Reusable within one subfield (a technique, dataset, or protocol a few groups will adopt).
10% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude2 / 5
Solid incremental gain on a meaningful problem.
20% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence5 / 5
Definitive: phase 3 randomized evidence on hard endpoints, multi-lab replication, or community verification at scale.
32% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty2 / 5
A new combination of known ideas.
8% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory2 / 5
Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
5% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes3 / 5
Meaningful benefit to many people within a few years.
25% of this desk’s rubric

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: design (randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled); verification (independent replication); stakes (major disease, prevention or cure).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score█████░░░░░5.0

Score = 10 × (80% × adjusted merit / 10 + 10% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit
6.4 / 10
Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit
5.1 / 10
Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (44%).
Attention
0%
Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness
92%
Half-life decay since publication.
  • Citations0 (reference 20, via semantic-scholar, Oct 21, 2026, 06:17 UTC)

The record

  • Reviewed by heuristic-v7 on Oct 21, 2026, 06:17 UTC. Paper type: clinical.
  • Categories: neurology
  • BRIEF, No.1 in the Medicine edition of October 21, 2026.