MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019909508 · doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e31817f1298

Probiotic Lactobacilli for Urogenital Health in Women

2008· review· en· W2019909508 on OpenAlexaff
Gregor Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactobacillus rhamnosusProbioticVaginaMedicineLactobacillusLactobacillus reuteriGenitourinary systemRectumImmunityPathogenPhysiologyMicrobiologyImmunologyBiologyImmune systemInternal medicineBacteriaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microbiota of the vagina form mostly from ascension of microbes from the rectal area. The numbers and types of microbes fluctuates with hormone levels, sexual contact, douching, and diet, yet the basic composition is relatively simple, with lactobacilli dominant in healthy females. The depletion of these organisms in women susceptible to urinary and vaginal infections, raised the question of whether artificial supplementation of lactobacilli could lower infection rates. To date, a 2 strain combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14 have proved to be the most effective at restoring and maintaining a normal vaginal microbiota. Other organisms show promise in resolving diseases that afflict over 1 billion women worldwide each year. The mechanisms involved have not been completely resolved, but seem to include modulation of host immunity, reduction in pathogen ascension from the rectum, and interference with colonization and survival of pathogens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologySame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207