Probiotics and prebiotics to combat enteric infections and HIV in the developing world: a consensus report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious disease in the developing world continues to represent one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Every year over a million children suffer and die from the sequela of enteric infections, while in 2008 it is estimated almost 2.7 million (UNAIDS 2009 update) adults and children became infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). While oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea, and antiretrovirals (ARV) for HIV are critical, there is a place for adjunctive therapies to improve quality of life. The importance of the human microbiota in retaining health is now recognized, as is the concept of replenishing beneficial microbes through probiotic treatments. Studies have shown that probiotics can reduce the duration of diarrhea, improve gut barrier function, help prevent bacterial vaginosis (BV), and enhance immunity even in HIV-infected subjects. However, many issues remain before the extent of probiotic benefits can be verified, and their application to the developing world realised. This consensus report outlines the potential probiotic, and to a lesser extent prebiotic, applications in resource disadvantages settings, and recommends steps that could bring tangible relief to millions of people. The challenges to both efficacy and effectiveness studies in these settings include a lack of infrastructure and funding for scientists, students and research projects in developing countries; making available clinically proven probiotic and prebiotic products at affordable prices; and undertaking appropriately designed clinical trials. We present a roadmap on how efficacy studies may be conducted in a resource disadvantages setting among persons with chronic diarrhea and HIV. These examples and the translation of efficacy into effectiveness are described.
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 | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".