Pregnancy outcome after exposure to the probiotic Lactobacillus in early pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study prospectively assessed pregnancy outcome of women taking probiotics during the periconceptional period. A group of 104 women who had taken Lactobacillus in early pregnancy and 200 age- and parity-matched control pregnant women exposed to non-teratogenic agents were also recruited into the study and followed-up prospectively. Median gestational age of women exposed to Lactobacillus was 5.2 (range: 1.9-17.6) weeks. Exposure was at a mean dose of 510 mg/day for a median of 4.0 days (range: 1-90 days). In the exposed group, pregnancy outcomes included 96 live births and eight spontaneous abortions versus 187 live births and 21 spontaneous abortions in the non-exposed group. There was no statistical difference in adverse pregnancy outcomes, including the number of spontaneous abortions, pre-term births as well as a low birth weight between the two groups (p > 0.05). In the exposed group, there were two (2.1%) major congenital malformations in comparison with five (2.7%) in the comparison group (p = 0.7). In conclusion, no association was identified between ingestion of Lactobacillus in early pregnancy for a limited period of time and adverse pregnancy outcomes. However, rare pregnancy outcomes may have been missed due to the limited sample size included in the study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".