MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066822315 · doi:10.1097/bor.0000000000000075

Microbiome and probiotics

2014· review· en· W2066822315 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Bedaiwi, Robert D. Inman

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisDiseaseRheumatoid arthritisImmune systemGut microbiomeImmunologyGut floraBioinformaticsComputational biologyBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The gut microbiome plays an integral role in the development and maintenance of the host immune system. Expanding knowledge about this microbial microenvironment has raised the possibility of new treatments based on this knowledge. In this review, we describe the recent evidence of the impact of the gut microbiome on arthritis and possible novel therapeutic approaches to alter the gut flora. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies support the growing evidence of microbiome as a causative agent underlying certain rheumatic diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis. There is intriguing yet still inconclusive evidence to support the use of probiotics as a treatment for these diseases. SUMMARY: There is recently a new level of understanding how the microbiome interacts with the immune system. Gene-environment interaction is another important element that sets the stage for initiation of autoimmune disease, which calls for further investigation. Probiotics could be an appealing therapeutic strategy, but further interventional studies exploring the dynamic interaction of microbiome and probiotics are still needed.

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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207