MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110388133 · doi:10.1080/08910600902815553

Effect of<i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i>299v treatment in an animal model of irritable bowel syndrome

2009· article· en· W2110388133 on OpenAlexaff
Alistair W.G. Waugh, Rae Foshaug, Sarah M. MacFarlane, Jason Doyle, Thomas A. Churchill, Beate C. Sydora, Richard N. Fedorak

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobial Ecology in Health and Disease · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrritable bowel syndromeLactobacillus plantarumMedicineGastroenterologyProbioticInternal medicineAnesthesiaPharmacologyBacteriaBiologyLactic acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lactobacillus plantarum 299v is a probiotic bacterium effective in treating symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. A mouse model of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) can be produced by rectal administration of 1% allyl isothiocyanate (oil of mustard) in 30% ethanol. This study examined the effect of L. plantarum 299v on colonic inflammation and motility in the oil of mustard model. L. plantarum 299v (1×109 cfu) was gavaged for up to 28 days, beginning either 7 days before (pretreatment) or 8 days after oil of mustard administration (post-treatment). Colonic interferon gamma (IFNγ) release as an assessment of the inflammatory response was measured at day 4 and day 20 following oil of mustard administration. Small intestinal transit was assessed via the dye-transit score technique at day 20. L. plantarum 299v reduced inflammation at both day 4 and day 20 and normalized intestinal transit rates in the oil of mustard murine IBS model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobial Ecology in Health and DiseaseSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207