Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotics are microorganisms exerting beneficial effects on the host. They can be ingested through foods or supplements and their inclusion in these products is regulated in Canada by the Health Canada Health Products and Food Branch. The aim of this article is to summarize current evidence from randomized controlled trials and guidelines from Health Canada, the World Health Organization, and internationally recognized expert committees in the hope that it will help practitioners and professionals recommending probiotics to healthy and diseased patients, with a focus on the Canadian setting. From a general perspective, probiotics can be recommended for prevention of diseases that are associated to altered intestinal ecology. Specifically, they can be recommended for prevention of upper respiratory tract infections and pouchitis, for prevention and management of necrotizing enterocolitis, bacterial vaginosis and antibiotic associated diarrhea, including Clostridium difficile infection, and for treatment of atopic eczema in cow's milk allergy and of infectious diarrhea. Additional substantiated probiotic benefits include prevention of hypercholesterolemia, management of constipation, reduction of recurrent urinary tract infections, improvement of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, and reduction of antibiotics side effects in Helicobacter pylori eradication. Because probiotics are generally recognized as safe and can be removed with antimicrobial agents, their use should be considered in patients of all ages.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.009 |
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".