It's basically Springer-Nature's answer to PLoS One. As long as it's not obviously crazy, anything goes. This doesn't look very convincing though. Without a no

It's basically Springer-Nature's answer to PLoS One. As long as it's not obviously crazy, anything goes. This doesn't look very convincing though. Without a no-treatment or sham treatment control, the results could be placebo effect, reversion to the mean on their metrics, or due to the antibiotic treatment rather than the transplanted gut bacteria, or a just a statistical fluke with this small population. One thing that stands out to me is the lack of difference in developmental age between 8 weeks and 2 years after treatment. I find it hard to understand how that would occur under the model where this treatment does something.