The administration of probiotics and synbiotics in immune compromised adults: is it safe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically evaluate safety of probiotics and synbiotics in immune compromised adults (≥18 years). Safety was analysed using the Common Terminology Clinical Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.0) classification, thereby providing an update on previous reports using the most recent available clinical data (2008-2013). Safety aspects are represented and related to number of participants per probiotic strain/culture, study duration, dosage, clinical condition and selected afflictions. Analysis of 57 clinical studies indicates that probiotic and/or synbiotic administration in immune compromised adults is safe with regard to the current evaluated probiotic strains, dosages and duration. Individuals were considered immune compromised if HIV-infected, critically ill, underwent surgery or had an organ- or an autoimmune disease. There were no major safety concerns in the study, as none of the serious adverse events (AE)s were related, or suspected to be related, to the probiotic or synbiotic product and the study products were well tolerated. Overall, AEs occurred less frequent in immune compromised subjects receiving probiotics and/or synbiotics compared to the control group. In addition, the results demonstrated a flaw in precise reporting and classification of AE in most studies. Furthermore, generalisability of conclusions are greatly limited by the inconsistent, imprecise and potentially incomplete reporting as well as the variation in probiotic strains, dosages, administration regimes, study populations and reported outcomes. We argue that standardised reporting on adverse events (CTCAE) in 'food' studies should be obligatory, thereby improving reliability of data and re-enforcing the safety profile of probiotics.
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 | 0.045 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".