Recommendations for Probiotic Use—2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommendations for the clinical use of probiotics were published after a Yale University Workshop in 2005. A similar workshop was held in 2007, and the recommendations were updated and extended into other areas. The recommendations are graded into an "A," "B," "C" or no category based on the expert's opinion and review by the workshop participants. An "A" recommendation is made for acute childhood diarrhea, prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, preventing and maintaining remission in pouchitis, and in an immune response for the treatment and prevention of atopic eczema associated with cow's milk allergy. The group maintained several "B" recommendations in other areas of treating inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Although there are significant studies in the "B" group, most "B" recommendations did not reach an "A" level because of some negative studies or a limited number of studies. Many reports in the "C" recommendations were significant but fell short of receiving stronger ratings because of the size of reported patient studies, and also the factors that limited categories to the "B" rating.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
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".