Indications for the Use of Probiotics in Gastrointestinal Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotics are live microbial organisms that are present in foods or dietary supplements and that confer health benefits to the host when ingested in sufficient quantities. Probiotics can be bacterial (e.g. Bifidobacteria spp. and Lactobacillus spp.) or yeasts (e.g. Saccharomyces boulardii). The administration of probiotics is often believed to be by and large beneficial for individuals with inflammatory or infectious diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. These positive effects are generally attributed to the ability of probiotics to regulate intestinal permeability, normalize host intestinal flora, improve gut immune barrier function, and equilibrate the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Of note, however, these claims are not always substantiated by findings from properly conducted clinical trials. Of particular importance, even when results from randomized controlled trials support the beneficial effects of a particular probiotic for a specific indication, the benefits achieved by the probiotic are generally not translatable to other probiotic formulations. This review discusses the gastrointestinal indications for probiotic use and describes the level of evidence that supports the use of specific probiotics for these indications. Several indications are addressed, including enteric infections, gastritis caused by Helicobacter pylori infection, necrotizing enterocolitis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and irritable bowel syndrome.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".