Recommendations for Probiotic Use—2011 Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the consensus opinion of the participants of the third Yale Workshop on probiotic use. There were 10 experts participating. The recommendations update those of the first 2 meetings that were published in 2005 and 2008. The workshop presentations and papers in this supplement relate to the involvement of normal microbiota involved in intestinal microecology, how the microbes interact with the intestine to affect our immunologic responses, the stability and natural history of probiotic organisms, and the role of the intestinal microbatome with regard to affecting cardiac risk factors and obesity. Recommendations for the use of probiotics in necrotizing enterocolitis, childhood diarrhea, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea are reviewed. As in previous publications, the recommendations are given as A, B, or C ratings. The recent positive experiences with bacteriotherapy (fecal microbiome transplant) are also discussed in detail and a positive recommendation is made for use in severe resistant C. difficile diarrhea.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".