Review: Effect of probiotics on gastrointestinal function: evidence from animal models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The digestive tract works through a complex net of integrative functions. At the level of the gut, this integration occurs between the immune, neuromotor and endocrine systems, the intestinal barrier and gut luminal contents. Gastrointestinal function is controlled and coordinated by the central nervous system to ensure effective motility, secretion, absorption and mucosal immunity. Thus, it is clear that the gut keeps a tightly regulated equilibrium between luminal stimuli, epithelium, immunity and neurotransmission in order to maintain homeostasis. It follows that perturbations of any of these systems may lead to gut dysfunction. While we acknowledge that the gut-brain axis is crucial in determining coordinated gut function, in this review we will focus on peripheral mechanisms that influence gastrointestinal physiology and pathophysiology. We will discuss the general hypothesis that the intestinal content is crucial in determining what we consider normal gastrointestinal physiology, and consequently that alteration in luminal content by dietary, antibiotic or probiotic manipulation can result in changes in gut function. This article focuses on lessons learned from animal models of gut dysfunction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it