Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R and Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 improve quality-of-life and IBS symptoms: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combination of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R and Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 was compared to placebo for relief of symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A total of 113 subjects at 3 clinical sites were randomised in a 2:1 ratio and followed for 12 weeks. Subjects ingested either 2 capsules of active study product, containing 50×109 cfu of live organisms, or 2 placebo capsules daily. Endpoints included improvement in abdominal pain, days of pain, distention, stool consistency and frequency, quality of life (QOL), and adequate relief (AR) of IBS symptoms. IBS subtypes constipation (IBS-C), diarrhoea (IBS-D), and mixed (IBS-M) were evaluated separately; the effect of gender was also examined. For all efficacy endpoints improvement of 30% or more vs placebo was considered clinically significant. With the exception of pain intensity and AR, the endpoints demonstrated a therapeutic advantage of active over placebo for IBS symptoms in at least some subject subgroups. The IBS-D and female subgroups showed the largest and most consistent effects. Stool frequency and consistency were evaluated in the IBS-C and IBS-D subgroups, and improvement of active vs placebo was noted in both. QOL improvement was seen overall and in specific domains. Adverse events (AEs) were limited to 7 subjects; all were of mild or moderate intensity except one, severe cramping. Four AEs in the same subject in the placebo group were judged to be related to study product; these resolved by the end of study. There were no serious AEs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".