Probiotic Therapy for the Treatment of Spondyloarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of an orally administered probiotic on disease activity, fatigue, quality of life, and intestinal symptoms in patients with active spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Patients with active spondyloarthritis [defined as Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 3, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) ≥ 3, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) ≥ 2, or peripheral joint count ≥ 2] were randomized to oral probiotic or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients and assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was 10% improvement in the BASFI. Additional outcome measures were improvements in the ASsessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS)-endorsed core domains: pain, spinal mobility, patient global, peripheral joint and entheseal scores, stiffness, C-reactive protein, and fatigue. The ASAS20 criteria, a composite measure of response, were also applied. Quality of life and bowel symptoms were quantified using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (ASQoL) and Dudley Inflammatory Bowel Symptom Questionnaire (DISQ). RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were randomized to oral probiotic (n = 32) or placebo (n = 31). All patients completed the trial. No significant difference was noted between groups in any of the core domains. The mean BASFI fell from 3.5 ± 2.0 to 2.9 ± 1.9 in the probiotic group and from 3.6 ± 1.9 to 3.1 ± 2.2 in the placebo group (p = 0.839). The mean BASDAI fell from 4.2 ± 2.2 to 3.2 ± 2.1 in the probiotic group and 4.5 ± 2.0 to 3.9 ± 2.2 in the placebo group (p = 0.182). No significant adverse events were recorded in the probiotic-treated group. CONCLUSION: In this randomized controlled trial, the probiotic combination administered did not demonstrate significant benefit over placebo, despite a theoretical rationale for this therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".