Improved cure of bacterial vaginosis with single dose of tinidazole (2 g),<i>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</i>GR-1, and<i>Lactobacillus reuteri</i>RC-14: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is the most prevalent vaginal infection worldwide and is characterized by depletion of the indigenous lactobacilli. Antimicrobial therapy is often ineffective. We hypothesized that probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14 might provide an adjunct to antimicrobial treatment and improve cure rates. Sixty-four Brazilian women diagnosed with BV were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of tinidazole (2 g) supplemented with either 2 placebo capsules or 2 capsules containing L. rhamnosus GR-1 and L. reuteri RC-14 every morning for the following 4 weeks. At the end of treatment (day 28), the probiotic group had a significantly higher cure rate of BV (87.5%) than the placebo group (50.0%) (p = 0.001). In addition, according to the Gram-stain Nugent score, more women were assessed with "normal" vaginal microbiota in the probiotic group (75.0% vs. 34.4% in the placebo group; p = 0.011). This study shows that probiotic lactobacilli can provide benefits to women being treated with antibiotics for an infectious condition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".