Calcium phosphate supplementation increases faecal Lactobacillus spp. in a randomised trial of young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the studies was to determine the effects of calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate supplementation on faecal Lactobacillus spp., with and without a probiotic supplement, in healthy adults. Study 1 comprised of a randomised, double-blind, crossover design; participants (n=15) received 2 capsules/d of 250 mg elemental calcium as calcium carbonate (Ca1) and calcium phosphate (Ca2) each for 2-week periods, with 2-week baseline and washout periods. Study 2 was a randomised, double-blind, crossover design; participants (n=17) received 2 capsules/d of Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011 (probiotic) alone, the probiotic with 2 capsules/d of Ca1, and probiotic with 2 capsules/d of Ca2 each for 2-week periods with 2-week baseline and washout periods. In both studies, stools were collected during the baseline, intervention and washout periods for Lactobacillus spp. quantification and qPCR analyses. Participants completed daily questionnaires of stool frequency and compliance. In Study 1, neither calcium supplement influenced viable counts of resident Lactobacillus spp., genome equivalents of lactic acid bacteria or stool frequency. In Study 2, faecal Lactobacillus spp. counts were significantly enhanced from baseline when the probiotic was administered with Ca2 (4.83±0.30, 5.79±0.31) (P=0.02), but not with Ca1 (4.98±0.31) or with the probiotic alone (5.36±0.31, 5.55±0.29) (not significant). Detection of L. helveticus R0052 and L. rhamnosus R0011 was significantly increased with all treatments, but did not differ among treatments. There were no changes in weekly stool frequency. Calcium phosphate co-administration may increase gastrointestinal survival of orally-administered Lactobacillus spp.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".