MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969772772 · doi:10.3920/bm2014.0031

Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis R0179 on gastrointestinal viability and general wellness: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults

2014· article· en· W1969772772 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulah Hanifi, Tyler Culpepper, Volker Mai, Anju Anand, Amanda Ford, Maria Ukhanova, Mary C. Christman, Thomas A. Tompkins, Wendy J. Dahl

Bibliographic record

VenueBeneficial Microbes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Florida
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineProbioticBacillus subtilisInternal medicineEnterococcus faeciumGastroenterologyRandomized controlled trialBiologyAntibioticsMicrobiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A probiotic formulation of Enterococcus faecium R0026 and Bacillus subtilis R0179 has been evaluated in previous clinical trials. However, B. subtilis R0179 has not been evaluated as a single probiotic strain or in combination with other strains at doses higher than 0.1×109 cfu. To establish oral dose-response tolerance and gastrointestinal (GI) viability of B. subtilis R0179, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults (n=81; 18-50 years old) was conducted. Participants received B. subtilis R0179 at 0.1, 1.0 or 10×109 cfu/capsule/day or placebo for four weeks. General wellness was assessed using a daily questionnaire evaluating GI, cephalic, ear-nose-throat, behavioural, emetic, and epidermal symptoms. GI symptoms were further evaluated using a weekly gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS). GI transit viability of B. subtilis R0179 was assessed by plating and microbiota analysis by 16S rRNA at baseline, week 4 of the intervention and washout. General wellness and GI function were not affected by oral consumption of B. subtilis R0179 at any dose. Daily questionnaire syndrome scores were not different from baseline and did not exceed a clinically significant score of 1. GSRS syndrome scores were not different from baseline and ranged from 1.1±0.1 to 1.9±0.2. Faecal viable counts of B. subtilis R0179 demonstrated a dose response: the placebo group (1.1±0.1 log10 cfu/g) differed from 0.1×109 (4.6±0.1 log10 cfu/g), 1×109 (5.6±0.1 log10 cfu/g) and 10×109 (6.4±0.1 log10 cfu/g) (P<0.0001). No significant changes in phyla were observed, but sequence reads binned to multiple operational taxonomic units matching closest to Ruminococci increased during probiotic supplementation. B. subtilis R0179 survives passage through the human GI tract and is well tolerated by healthy adults at intakes from 0.1 to 10×109 cfu/day. The trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT01802151.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeneficial MicrobesSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207