Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To defi ne the term probiotics, to indicate how to identify products that have been proven benefi cial, and to assess the quality of evidence regarding probiotics. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE A few level I studies support the eff ectiveness of specifi c probiotics for certain diagnoses. For most socalled probiotics, however, weak or no evidence supports their eff ectiveness. MAIN MESSAGE Probiotics are live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefi t on the host. Level I evidence supports use of VSL#3 for maintaining remission of infl ammatory colitis. Probiotics for treating vaginal infections, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14, have level I evidence of eff ectiveness, but are not available in Canada. Specifi c probiotics taken for certain indications improve health and have few side eff ects. CONCLUSION Limited but good evidence supports the role of certain probiotics in medical practice. Because consumer pressure will undoubtedly stimulate further interest in probiotics, family doctors need to be informed about them so they can advise their patients appropriately. RESUME
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".