A159 A SURVEY FOR THE USE OF PROBIOTICS, PREBIOTICS AND DIETARY FIBRE SUPPLEMENTS IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are chronic inflammatory conditions of the intestines that are believed to be induced by abnormal activation of the immune cells in response to resident intestinal bacteria in genetically susceptible hosts. Probiotics, prebiotics and dietary fibres alter the gut microbiota and improve its function, thus potentially counteracting the development of inflammation. Unlike the current standard medications for IBD, these supplements are relatively safe. As such they are suggested as promising novel adjuvant modalities in the treatment of IBD. Although the role of these compounds in the prevention and treatment of IBD is understudied, there seems to be a widespread, undocumented use of these supplements by patients. Identification of usage of probiotics and prebiotics in IBD patients, will allow for optimization of therapy, and improved clinical outcomes. To assess the intake of probiotics, prebiotics and dietary fibre supplements in patients with IBD in Edmonton, Alberta. A cross-sectional, observational study using a 20-item survey questionnaire was used in patients with a diagnosis of IBD in the IBD Clinic at the University of Alberta. Data regarding demographics, disease characteristics, use and knowledge of probiotics, prebiotics and dietary fibre supplements was collected and analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. In this pilot study, 23 participants with a known diagnosis of IBD (57% ulcerative colitis, 39% Crohn’s disease, 4% indeterminate colitis) completed survey questionnaires. Statistical analysis demonstrated that a large number of participants were knowledgeable about probiotics and dietary fibres, but less about prebiotics (87% probiotics, 74% fibres, 43% prebiotics, P < 0.38). Sixty five per cent of surveyed patients have used these products in the past. However, regular usage (in the last year), was much lower (48% probiotics, 28% fibres, 4% prebiotics). Of those who used these alternative treatments in the past, 31% of patients experienced an increase in quality of life (QoL). Those without a university degree were more likely to use these products (67%, P < 0.37). The effect of gender on usage was negligible (53% males, 47% females, P < 1.0). Preliminary results did not reach statistical significance. This pilot study shows that a large proportion of IBD patients have used probiotics, prebiotics and dietary fibre supplements in the past despite the lack of well-proven efficacy. Since these microbiota targeting strategies have a great potential to improve disease outcomes, it is important that clinicians and researchers document their use. CIHR
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".