MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Urogenital Lactobacilli Probiotics, Reliability, and Regulatory Issues

2001· article· en· W2062193469 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregor Reid, Christian V. Zalai, Gillian E. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsLactobacillus rhamnosusLactobacillus fermentumProbioticLactobacillusBiologyBiotechnologyVaginaHealth benefitsMicrobiologyMedicineBacteriaGeneticsLactic acidTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of the hundreds of Lactobacillus so-called probiotic products, only a handful contain identifiable strains that have any published data supporting their usefulness in humans. Of these, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1, Lactobacillus fermen- tum RC-14, and Lactobacillus fermentum B-54 possess anti- pathogen properties and colonize the intestine and vagina, conferring health benefits to women. These strains have been found to adhere to vaginal cells, hemagglutinate red blood cells and produce biosurfactants. Taking these or other strains to the marketplace, whether as dairy products or not, requires reliable production and delivery vehicles, and regulatory ap- proval. For this important field to move forward to meet the approval of health care professionals, a better scientific basis for specific strain use in high quality products aimed at well- defined sites is needed. Furthermore, information targeted at, or viewed by, consumers should state the attributes of actual strains in a given product, and reference the peer-reviewed

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)0.189
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1890.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations42
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207