Selection of<i>Lactobacillus</i>Strains for Urogenital Probiotic Applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost 20 years ago, it was shown that lactobacilli expressed properties that appeared to play a role in protecting the host from urogenital infection [1]. Since then, studies have shown that exogenously applied lactobacilli or indigenous lactobacilli, can reduce the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) [2-4]. The investigations have focused upon the large clinical problem of lactobacilli depletion being associated with UTI, bacterial vaginosis (BV), and yeast vaginitis, which together cause an estimated one billion episodes of disease among women each year. The application of exogenous organisms, such as lactobacilli, to the host is termed probiotics, which is broadly defined as a living microorganism administered to promote the health of the host by treating or preventing disease. While many so-called probiotic products are available, the content and viability of most are unreliable [5, 6], leading to use of strains that do not colonize and therefore do not protect against recurrent UTI [7]. For probiotic applications to the urogenital tract to be successful, it is critical that a scientific basis be established for selection of strains. This should at least shed some light upon their mechanism of action in vivo. Several properties appear to be critical, namely the ability to colonize the host, to inhibit pathogen binding and growth, and to create a balanced flora that resists spermicidal killing [8-10].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it