Is there a ‘gut–brain–skin axis’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence arising from interdisciplinary research supports the occurrence of communication axes between organs, such as the brain-gut or brain-skin axis. The latter is employed in response to stress challenge, along which neurogenic skin inflammation and hair growth inhibition is mediated. We now show that ingestion of a Lactobacillus strain in mice dampens stress-induced neurogenic skin inflammation and the hair growth inhibition. In conclusion, we are introducing a hypothesis, encouraged by our pilot observations and resting upon published prior evidence from the literature, which amalgamates previously proposed partial concepts into a new, unifying model, i.e. the gut-brain-skin axis. This concept suggests that modulation of the microbiome by deployment of probiotics can not only greatly reduce stress-induced neurogenic skin inflammation but even affect a very complex cutaneous phenomenon of (mini-) organ transformation, i.e. hair follicle cycling. These observations raise the intriguing prospect that feeding of just the right kind of bacteria can exert profound beneficial effects on skin homoeostasis, skin inflammation, hair growth and peripheral tissue responses to perceived stress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".