MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099414933 · doi:10.1002/mnfr.201400548

The perspective on cholesterol‐lowering mechanisms of probiotics

2014· review· en· W2099414933 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Nutrition & Food Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersJiangnan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsProbioticCholesterolHypocholesterolemiaSynbioticsCholesterol loweringBiochemistryBiologyChemistryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of probiotics as food components combats not only cardiovascular diseases but also many gastrointestinal tract disorders. Their health benefits along with their increased global market have interested scientists for better formulation and appropriate administration to the consumers. However, the lack of clear elucidation of their cholesterol-lowering mechanisms has complicated their proper dosage and administration to the beneficiaries. In this review, proposed mechanisms of cholesterol reduction such as deconjugation of bile via bile salt hydrolase activity, binding of cholesterol to probiotic cellular surface and incorporation into their cell membrane, production of SCFAs from oligosaccharides, coprecipitation of cholesterol with deconjugated bile, and cholesterol conversion to coprostanol have been discussed. Also, hypocholesterolemic effects on human- and animal-trial results, commonly used probiotics and synbiotics with effect on serum cholesterol regulation, types of bile salt hydrolase genes, and substrate specificities have been discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.279 · 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