Review: probiotics reduced diarrhoea at 3 days in children and adults with proven or presumed infectious diarrhoea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allen SJ, Okoko B, Martinez E, et al . Probiotics for treating infectious diarrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD003048. Q Are probiotics effective for proven or presumed infectious diarrhoea in children and adults? ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group trials register (December 2002), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 4, 2002), Medline (1966–2002), and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (1988–2002); existing reviews; reference lists of retrieved trials; experts and relevant organisations; and 5 manufacturers of probiotics. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that compared specific probiotics with placebo or no probiotic in adults and children with acute diarrhoea (<14 d) that was proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent. 2 independent reviewers assessed … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".