Liver cirrhosis

Compared within 2 studies that had both: 45 people with liver cirrhosis and 100 healthy people. 2 genera are less common in people with liver cirrhosis, and 24 more common.

A difference is an association: it doesn’t mean these genera cause, prevent or treat liver cirrhosis. GMrepo reports this group at the genus level only, so these are genera, not species.

Phylum

Searching opens both lists and shows only matching rows.

Less common in liver cirrhosis · 2

Strongest first, then the biggest gap · Each figure is 10 people Strongest first · Each figure is 10 people
  1. Brevundimonas genus in 2 studies Healthy 49% liver cirrhosis 2.2%
  2. Adlercreutzia genus in 2 studies Healthy 48% liver cirrhosis 16%

More common in liver cirrhosis · 24

Strongest first, then the biggest gap · Each figure is 10 people Strongest first · Each figure is 10 people
  1. Clostridioides genus in 2 studies Healthy under 1% liver cirrhosis 69%
  2. Atopobium genus in 2 studies Healthy 3.7% liver cirrhosis 71%
  3. Veillonella genus in 2 studies Healthy 23% liver cirrhosis 84%
  4. Hungatella genus in 2 studies Healthy 15% liver cirrhosis 76%
  5. Tannerellaceae genus in 2 studies Healthy 27% liver cirrhosis 87%

As many carry these · 3 the amount differs

Strongest first, then the biggest gap · Each figure is 10 people Strongest first · Each figure is 10 people
  1. Romboutsia genus in 2 studies Healthy 83% liver cirrhosis 87%

    Carriers have about a third as much, in 2 of 2 studies (1.3% → 0.44% of their gut microbes).

  2. Ruminococcus genus in 2 studies Healthy 86% liver cirrhosis 93%

    Carriers have about a third as much, in 2 of 2 studies (0.99% → 0.21% of their gut microbes).

  3. Mediterraneibacter genus in 2 studies Healthy 91% liver cirrhosis 100%

    Carriers have about twice as much, in 2 of 2 studies (1.3% → 3.4% of their gut microbes).

Where these numbers come from

Studies
Only GMrepo projects that had people with the condition and healthy people, 10 or more of each. Numbers come from those studies, never from pooling.Sampled in China.
How common
The share of people whose sample has any of it, in the people with the condition and in the healthy people of those same studies. Tested within studies (Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel, corrected for testing many microbes); a difference counts when it is clear and meaningful (Cohen’s h of 0.2 or more).
Strength word
Counted by code from how many studies point the same way: Seen again and again (3 or more, none clearly the other way), Seen more than once (2, the majority), Seen once (1, listed last). Where studies disagree, a row isn’t listed.
Each study
Tap a row for every study’s own numbers, and for how much carriers have.
Analysis
Our analysis of GMrepo data. GMrepo on Data sources · Read the rules

Also compared · 123 genera

Compared within studies that had both, but not listed above.

Studies disagree · 37

No meaningful difference · 86

PubMed · human studies and reviews first

Recent research

All research on it
  1. Review The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
    Rifaximin in cirrhosis: when therapeutic drift meets antimicrobial stewardship.
    PubMed ↗
  2. PubMed ↗
  3. PubMed ↗
  4. PubMed ↗
  5. PubMed ↗

Source: PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine · 83 linked papers, last 10 years