MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600109959 · doi:10.1159/000455219

Microbiota in Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders in Infancy: Implications for Management

2017· review· en· W2600109959 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Abrahamsson, Richard Wu, Philip M. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueNestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop series · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInfant Health and Development
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMead Johnson Nutrition
KeywordsProbioticIrritable bowel syndromeDysbiosisMicrobiomeGut floraShort bowel syndromeMedicineBiologyBioinformaticsImmunologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineParenteral nutritionBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complex and diverse intestinal microbiome is recognized as important in promoting human health. An altered gut microflora, referred to as dysbiosis, is increasingly recognized as having an etiologic role in a variety of conditions, including functional gastrointestinal disorders: colic in infants and irritable bowel syndrome in older children. Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that, if ingested in sufficient amounts, restore microbial homeostasis and have a benefit on health. Randomized controlled trials indicate that probiotics can be effective in a variety of intestinal conditions, including colic and irritable bowel syndrome. Probiotics may promote gut microbial diversity, but timing of the intervention appears crucial. Strain-specific effects on colonization resistance, epithelial barrier integrity, modulation of signal transduction, impacts on innate and adaptive immune responses, and effects on visceral hyperalgesia likely explain the observed variability in various probiotic strains. In the future, probiotics are likely to be chosen for use in a defined clinical setting based on underlying mechanism(s) of action. The precise component of the probiotic agent mediating observed effects is the subject of current research. Unresolved issues relate to optimal dosages, timing of ingestion, single versus combination formulations, maintenance of viability in storage, and the merits of employing probiotic-derived products.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.465
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNestlé Nutrition Institute Workshop seriesSame topicInfant Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207