The case in favour of probiotics before, during and after pregnancy: insights from the first 1,500 days
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
Successful human reproduction requires microbial homeostasis in the female reproductive tract, and colonisation of the newborn with beneficial microbes. In order to prevent several complications associated with dysbiosis, the administration of probiotics is more often being considered. The objective of the enclosed review was to examine the rationale for probiotic utility before and during pregnancy and in the early phase of infant life. The conclusions emerged from a panel of researchers who met during the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) workshop held in Washington, DC, USA in 2015. The group concluded based upon the current literature, that a case can be made for the use of a specific sets of probiotic organisms during the first 1,500 days of life, with the goal of a healthy pregnancy to term, and a healthy start to life with lowered risk of infections and inflammatory events. The key to successfully translating these recommendations to practice is that products be made available and affordable to women in developed and developing countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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