Comparative Study for Probiotics and Symbiotics Versus Placebo in Pediatrics Acute Diarrhea: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute diarrhea is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children, particularly in developing countries (the second cause of death). Probiotics and symbiotics are recent treatments for this disease, especially in the acute phase. Our objective is to compare probiotic or symbiotic treatment against placebo in acute diarrhea by following the evolution of diarrhea in terms of hours, number of bowel movements, volume of stools and their consistency. On a larger scale, we want to find a cost-effective intervention that reduces the morbidity and mortality of diarrhea. Methods: Eighty-three children aged 6 months to 5 years, from three different regions of Mount Lebanon, were randomized to receive a probiotic, a symbiotic or a placebo once daily for 5 days. Patients were excluded from the study if they had any history of a chronic disease. The statistical analysis was carried out on SPSS v22.00 Results: Out of 120 surveys distributed to parents, 84 were completed: 43 patients received probiotics (nine received Lactobacillus , 21 received spores, and 13 patients received yeast), 24 received symbiotics and 17 were controls. Stool consistency normalized on day 4 in the probiotics and symbiotics groups (P = 0.009). Less number of days with fever (P = 0.018) were observed in the probiotic and symbiotic groups (1 day) compared to placebo (4 days). No difference in the symptoms associated with diarrhea was observed in the different groups. Conclusions: Probiotics and symbiotics normalized stool consistency in pediatric diarrhea by day 4 and decreased the number of days with fever compared to control. Our study did not show a statistically significant difference between the different probiotics and symbiotics for the treatment of diarrhea. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2018;7(3):21-28 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp288e
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".