MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014303640 · doi:10.3109/09637486.2015.1024204

Effect of<i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i>NCU116 on loperamide-induced constipation in mice

2015· article· en· W2014303640 on OpenAlexaff
Chuan Li, Shaoping Nie, Ke‐Xue Zhu, Tao Xiong, Chang Li, Joshua Gong, Mingyong Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoperamideConstipationLactobacillus plantarumGastroenterologyInternal medicineMedicineDiarrheaGastrointestinal tractFecesProbioticLaxativeLactobacillusChemistryBiologyFood scienceMicrobiologyLactic acidBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lactobacillus plantarum, as a probiotic, has many functional properties in human intestinal tract. This study examined the effects of L. plantarum NCU116 on loperamide-induced constipation in a mouse model. Loperamide (5 mg kg(-1)) was injected subcutaneously to induce constipation. Animals were divided to five groups: normal group, constipation group, constipation plus three doses of L. plantarum NCU116 groups (NCU116-L, 10(7) CFU/mL; NCU116-M, 10(8) CFU/mL; NCU116-H, 10(9) CFU/mL; respectively). Mice were treated with the probiotic for 15 d to assess the anti-constipation effects. Fecal parameters, intestinal transit ratio and the production of fecal short chain fatty acids, histological of colon and immunohistochemical in colonic interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC) by c-kit were all improved in L. plantarum NCU116-treated mice as compared to the constipation group. These results demonstrate that L. plantarum NCU116 enhanced gastrointestinal transit and alleviated in mice with loperamide-induced constipation.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and NutritionSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207