Probiotics in the Treatment of Human Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and pouchitis after ileal pouch anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis patients are often refractory to standard therapy. Over the last decade, the rational to use probiotics and its beneficial efficacy in the treatment of chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasingly under scrutiny. Although it has become clear that intestinal epithelial-mucosal immune interactions and enteric bacteria play a critical role in the development of IBD, the substantial clinical efficacy of probiotics in these disorders is less evident. This review outlines the clinical studies regarding probiotics before October 2007. These studies formed the foundation of probiotic clinical trials in IBD, but they also indicated the need of larger and better-controlled studies than the past experimental approaches. Furthermore, this review also examines in-depth the probiotic clinical trials published between 2007 and December 2010, providing new insights into the role of probiotics for inducing and maintaining remission of IBD, and highlighting some of the breakthroughs, especially regarding induction of remission for ulcerative colitis.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".