MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749187512 · doi:10.1093/femsre/fux035

Using murine colitis models to analyze probiotics–host interactions

2017· review· en· W2749187512 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEuropean Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsProbioticBiologyColitisHost (biology)Gastrointestinal tractSelection (genetic algorithm)MicrobiologyImmunologyBacteriaEcologyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probiotics are defined as 'live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host'. So, to consider a microorganism as a probiotic, a demonstrable beneficial effect on the health host should be shown as well as an adequate defined safety status and the capacity to survive transit through the gastrointestinal tract and to storage conditions. In this review, we present an overview of the murine colitis models currently employed to test the beneficial effect of the probiotic strains as well as an overview of the probiotics already tested. Our aim is to highlight both the importance of the adequate selection of the animal model to test the potential probiotic strains and of the value of the knowledge generated by these in vivo tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.200 · 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