Probiotics in colorectal cancer (CRC) with emphasis on mechanisms of action and current perspectives
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
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer. Diverse therapies such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy and radiation have shown beneficial effects, but are limited because of their safety and toxicity. Probiotic formulations have shown great promise in CRC as preventive and early stage therapeutics. This review highlights the importance of a balanced intestinal microbiota and summarizes the recent developments in probiotics for treating CRC. Specifically, this report describes evidence of the role of probiotics in modulating the microbiota, in improving the physico-chemical conditions of the gut and in reducing oxidative stress. It also discusses the mechanisms of probiotics in inhibiting tumour progression, in producing anticancer compounds and in modulating the host immune response. Even though some of these effects were observed in several clinical trials, when probiotic formulations were used as a supplement to CRC therapies, the application of probiotics as biotherapeutics against CRC still needs further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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