Preventing constipation: a review of the laxative potential of food ingredients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Constipation is a highly prevalent and difficult‐to‐cure health problem, forcing 10–20% of the worldwide population to seek medical care. Efficacy of treatments varies greatly among individuals, and problems are becoming more frequent despite higher consumption of fibre‐rich foods, the most popular solution for preventing such gastrointestinal disorders. The evidence that consumption of fibre prevents and relieves constipation is unconvincing or uncertain. The food industry has made great efforts to develop fibre‐rich ingredients, especially those from food by‐products and wastes. Except for psyllium and wheat bran, most of these ingredients have intermediate or low laxative potential and their efficacy needs to be confirmed by more clinical studies. This review suggests that there are major discrepancies between the proposed fibre‐enriched ingredients and the consumers' needs. As a lasting solution to prevent constipation, the true impact of dietary fibre and potent food‐grade laxatives might also be limited by overeating.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".