MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514744092 · doi:10.3390/nu8090523

Distant Site Effects of Ingested Prebiotics

2016· review· en· W2514744092 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie L. Collins, Gregor Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrebioticPolydextroseMicrobiomeGut microbiomeBiologyFood scienceImmune systemDysbiosisBioinformaticsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gut microbiome is being more widely recognized for its association with positive health outcomes, including those distant to the gastrointestinal system. This has given the ability to maintain and restore microbial homeostasis a new significance. Prebiotic compounds are appealing for this purpose as they are generally food-grade substances only degraded by microbes, such as bifidobacteria and lactobacilli, from which beneficial short-chain fatty acids are produced. Saccharides such as inulin and other fructo-oligosaccharides, galactooligosaccharides, and polydextrose have been widely used to improve gastrointestinal outcomes, but they appear to also influence distant sites. This review examined the effects of prebiotics on bone strength, neural and cognitive processes, immune functioning, skin, and serum lipid profile. The mode of action is in part affected by intestinal permeability and by fermentation products reaching target cells. As the types of prebiotics available diversify, so too will our understanding of the range of microbes able to degrade them, and the extent to which body sites can be impacted by their consumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicMicrobial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207