MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probiotics for the Developing World

2005· review· en· W2059733346 on OpenAlexaff
Gregor Reid, Sanjeev Anand, Max Bingham, Gabriel Mbugua, Torkel Wadström, R. Fuller, Kingsley C. Anukam, Melanie Katsivo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeveloping countryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)International communityDiarrheal diseasesEnvironmental healthEconomic growthDevelopment economicsDiarrheaFamily medicinePolitical sciencePathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every minute of every day more and more children die of diarrheal diseases and women, and girls become infected by HIV. An estimated 7,000 women become infected each day. While many valiant efforts are being made to address these issues, until now they have proved to be markedly ineffective. The notion that lactic acid bacteria, formulated into food or dietary supplements, could have a role to play in slowing the morbidity and mortality associated with HIV/AIDS and gastroenteritis, is built upon sound clinical findings and scientific investigations, yet no international efforts have been placed in this approach, to date. We hereby summarize the reasons why such efforts should be made, provide an example of one model being set up in sub-Saharan Africa, and challenge the international community to consider the potential benefits of probiotics, especially for communities not reached by governmental and nongovernmental agencies.

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)0.001
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations46
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207