Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Saliva and stool microbiota are altered in cirrhosis. Since stool is logistically difficult to collect compared to saliva, it is important to determine their relative diagnostic and prognostic capabilities. We aimed to determine the ability of stool vs. saliva microbiota to differentiate between groups based on disease severity using machine learning (ML). METHODS: Controls and outpatients with cirrhosis underwent saliva and stool microbiome analysis. Controls vs. cirrhosis and within cirrhosis (based on hepatic encephalopathy [HE], proton pump inhibitor [PPI] and rifaximin use) were classified using 4 ML techniques (random forest [RF], support vector machine, logistic regression, and gradient boosting) with AUC comparisons for stool, saliva or both sample types. Individual microbial contributions were computed using feature importance of RF and Shapley additive explanations. Finally, thresholds for including microbiota were varied between 2.5% and 10%, and core microbiome (DESeq2) analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-nine participants, including 87 controls and 182 patients with cirrhosis, of whom 57 had HE, 78 were on PPIs and 29 on rifaximin were included. Regardless of the ML model, stool microbiota had a significantly higher AUC in differentiating groups vs. saliva. Regarding individual microbiota: autochthonous taxa drove the difference between controls vs. patients with cirrhosis, oral-origin microbiota the difference between PPI users/non-users, and pathobionts and autochthonous taxa the difference between rifaximin users/non-users and patients with/without HE. These were consistent with the core microbiome analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: On ML analysis, stool microbiota composition is significantly more informative in differentiating between controls and patients with cirrhosis, and those with varying cirrhosis severity, compared to saliva. Despite logistic challenges, stool should be preferred over saliva for microbiome analysis. LAY SUMMARY: Since it is harder to collect stool than saliva, we wanted to test whether microbes from saliva were better than stool in differentiating between healthy people and those with cirrhosis and, among those with cirrhosis, those with more severe disease. Using machine learning, we found that microbes in stool were more accurate than saliva alone or in combination, therefore, stool should be preferred for analysis and collection wherever possible.