Pilot assessment of probiotics for pregnant women in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the global market for probiotics is soon to reach in excess of US$50 billion, the continent of Africa has been largely ignored, despite these products having the ability to reduce the burden of disease and death. TRIAL DESIGN: The present randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial was undertaken in Rwanda, a country devoid of well-documented probiotics. The primary outcome aim was to examine receptivity and compliance for orally administered probiotic capsules containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14 in pregnant women and assess any initial side effects or changes to the vaginal microbiome. METHODS: Pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 55 were recruited from the Nyamata District Hospital in Rwanda and randomly assigned to receive probiotic or placebo capsules for one month. Clinicians were blinded to the treatments. RESULTS: The drop-out rate was 21%, with 13 of 18 women in the placebo group and 17 of 20 in the probiotic group completing the study. Only 13 women returned for birthing and additional sample collection. No side effects of either treatment group were reported. Microbiota and metabolomics data showed similar findings to those reported in the literature, with low bacterial diversity and Lactobacillus dominance associated with a healthy vagina, and birthing associated with high diversity. Despite the small sample size and lack of changes in the microbiota, women in the placebo arm were significantly more likely to give birth pre-term. CONCLUSION: Overall women were receptive to the probiotic concept, but the lack of information on such products and logistical and economical challenges pose problems for wider population engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02150655.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".