Recently, I released Odds Ratio–based suggestions and reports, such as the example shown here.

The underlying concepts are straightforward:

• If you are in an unhealthy range, the goal is to move out of that range.
• If you are not in an unhealthy range but fall outside a defined healthy range, the goal is to move into the healthy range.

For healthy ranges, interpretation is simple—you are either too high or too low, so the direction of adjustment is clear.

• If the range is 10%ile to 30 %ile and you are at 29%ile, should you increase or decrease?
• If the range is 70%ile to 90 %ile and you are at 85%ile, should you increase or decrease?

Unhealthy ranges, however, are more nuanced.

For example:

• If the unhealthy range is the 10th to 30th percentile and your value is at the 29th percentile, should you increase or decrease?
• If the unhealthy range is the 70th to 90th percentile and your value is at the 85th percentile, should you increase or decrease?

The core issue is understanding why the range is considered unhealthy—specifically, whether the problem arises from having too little of something or too much.

• Lactobacillus delbrueckii
  • Unhealthy: 0 – 45%ile
  • Healthy: 48%- 72%ile
• Lactobacillus gasseri (A Surprise!): 0 -100%ile is Unhealthy
• Lactobacillus johnsonii: 0 – 72%ile Healthy
• Lactobacillus taiwanensis: 23-56%ile Unhealthy
• Limosilactobacillus reuteri: 0-52%ile Unhealthy

The above numbers are slightly suspect because many are P > 0.002, so may not be significant.

Confidence	Bacteria this or less significant	Bacteria More Significant
P < 0.001	2081 Ranges	694 Ranges
P < 0.0001	2383 Ranges	392 Ranges
P < 0.00001	2495	280

A List of Families with high significance

It is interesting to note that neither Lactobacillaceae (Lactobacillus) nor Bifidobacteriaceae (Bifidobacterium) were found to be significant at this level. Nor were they at the genus level, only at the specific species level (see below)

tax_name	Range	Nature
Anaplasmataceae	0 to 75	Unhealthy
Bartonellaceae	0 to 79	Unhealthy
Chlorobiaceae	0 to 58	Unhealthy
Chrysiogenaceae	0 to 83	Unhealthy
Clostridiales Family XVI. Incertae Sedis	0 to 100	Unhealthy
Comamonadaceae	0 to 28	Unhealthy
Comamonadaceae	34 to 52	Unhealthy
Cyanobacteriaceae	21 to 99	Unhealthy
Deinococcaceae	0 to 46	Unhealthy
Desulfonatronaceae	0 to 50	Unhealthy
Enterococcaceae	0 to 66	Healthy
Enterococcaceae	68 to 71	Unhealthy
Euzebyaceae	13 to 100	Unhealthy
Hyphomicrobiaceae	0 to 87	Unhealthy
Kiloniellaceae	20 to 99	Unhealthy
Legionellaceae	0 to 100	Unhealthy
Listeriaceae	74 to 88	Unhealthy
Litorivicinaceae	0 to 18	Unhealthy
Lysobacteraceae	0 to 27	Unhealthy
Methylophilaceae	0 to 96	Unhealthy
Nostocaceae	14 to 88	Unhealthy
Oxalobacteraceae	0 to 30	Unhealthy
Pseudanabaenaceae	0 to 100	Unhealthy
Shewanellaceae	0 to 73	Unhealthy
Sporolactobacillaceae	0 to 100	Unhealthy
Streptosporangiaceae	53 to 88	Unhealthy
Symbiobacteriaceae	0 to 81	Unhealthy
Synechococcaceae	0 to 9	Unhealthy
Synechococcaceae	48 to 85	Unhealthy
Thermoanaerobacterales Family III. Incertae Sedis	3 to 50	Unhealthy
Thiotrichaceae	7 to 100	Unhealthy
Weeksellaceae	0 to 100	Unhealthy

Significant Bifidobacterium Species

tax_name	Range	Nature
Bifidobacterium adolescentis	0 to 49	Unhealthy
Bifidobacterium angulatum	0 to 73	Healthy
Bifidobacterium breve	0 to 76	Unhealthy
Bifidobacterium catenulatum	0 to 100	Healthy
Bifidobacterium dentium	0 to 50	Unhealthy
Bifidobacterium scardovii	0 to 79	Unhealthy

Significant Lactobacillus Species

tax_name	Range	Nature
Lacticaseibacillus brantae	33 to 70	Unhealthy
Lactobacillus acidophilus	0 to 76	Unhealthy
Lactobacillus amylovorus	0 to 100	Unhealthy
Ligilactobacillus murinus	0 to 100	Unhealthy

Summary

I am hoping to expand the size of my “Healthy Samples” in the next weeks. This should improve the ranges and significance.