MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029503132 · doi:10.1177/0148607108331176

Comment On: Probiotic Prophylaxis in Predicted Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial

2009· letter· en· W2029503132 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. McClave, Daren K. Heyland, Paul E. Wischmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAcute pancreatitisInternal medicineClinical endpointPancreatitisRandomized controlled trialProbioticRandomizationRelative riskPlacebo-controlled studyAdverse effectPneumoniaGastroenterologySurgeryDouble blindConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infectious complications and associated mortality are a major concern in acute pancreatitis. Enteral administration of probiotics could prevent infectious complications, but convincing evidence is scarce. Our aim was to assess the effects of probiotic prophylaxis in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 298 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Acute Physiology and Chronic health Evaluation [APACHE II] score > or =8, Imrie score > or =3, or C-reactive protein >150 mg/L) were randomly assigned within 72 h of onset of symptoms to receive a multispecies probiotic preparation (n = 153) or placebo (n = 145), administered enterally twice daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the composite of infectious complications-ie, infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, urosepsis, or infected ascites-during admission and 90-day follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN38327949. FINDINGS: One person in each group was excluded from analyses because of incorrect diagnoses of pancreatitis; thus, 152 individuals in the probiotics group and 144 in the placebo group were analysed. Groups were much the same at baseline in terms of patients' characteristics and disease severity. Infectious complications occurred in 46 (30%) patients in the probiotics group and 41 (28%) of those in the placebo group (relative risk 1.06, 95% CI 0.75-1.51). 24 (16%) patients in the probiotics group died, compared with nine (6%) in the placebo group (relative risk 2.53, 95% CI 1.22-5.25). Nine patients in the probiotics group developed bowel ischaemia (eight with fatal outcome), compared with none in the placebo group (p = 0.004). INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis, probiotic prophylaxis with this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infectious complications and was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Probiotic prophylaxis should therefore not be administered in this category of patients. (Lancet. 2008;371:651-659) Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E, et al; Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0190.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Parenteral and Enteral NutritionSame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207