MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971342317 · doi:10.3920/bm2008.1005

A comprehensive review of post-market clinical studies performed in adults with an Asian probiotic formulation

2009· review· en· W1971342317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBeneficial Microbes · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHelicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsProbioticMedicineMesalazineIrritable bowel syndromeClinical trialEnterococcus faeciumDosingIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineAdverse effectUlcerative colitisInternal medicineAntibioticsPathologyBiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probiotics as dietary supplements have been readily accepted by Asian populations. Use of certain probiotic preparations is widespread and the number of clinical trials undertaken with such products is unparalleled in western scientific literature. One such preparation, containing a combination of Enterococcus faecium R0026 and Bacillus subtilis R0179, has 23 publications on post-market clinical studies involving over 1,800 adults. The majority of these publications are printed in Chinese and Korean journals. This review examines the clinical findings with this probiotic combination. As mono-therapy, it has been used to overcome symptoms associated with chronic diarrhoea and irritable bowel syndrome. It has been used as co-adjuvant therapy with sulfasalazine and mesalazine to improve remission times in mild to moderate Ulcerative Colitis and to improve compliance with conventional triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. While the much of the data is preliminary and the study designs require refinement, the contribution of these trials should not be ignored. The information derived in this review will provide practitioners with practical information on appropriate applications for probiotic supplements, expected outcomes, dosing regimes, safety and reported adverse events. Furthermore, identification of problems in these trials should help researchers design better clinical trials when investigating probiotic products.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.320 · 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