MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809911284 · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuy018

Antibiotics in early life: dysbiosis and the damage done

2018· review· en· W2809911284 on OpenAlexafffund
Hadar Neuman, Paul Forsythe, Atara Uzan, Orly Avni, Omry Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAzrieli FoundationIsrael Science FoundationCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsAntibioticsDysbiosisBiologyGut floraMicrobiomeImmunityImmunologyAllergyAdverse effectImmune systemMicrobiologyBioinformaticsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antibiotics are the most common type of medication prescribed to children, including infants, in the Western world. While use of antibiotics has transformed previously lethal infections into relatively minor diseases, antibiotic treatments can have adverse effects as well. It has been shown in children, adults and animal models that antibiotics dramatically alter the gut microbial composition. Since the gut microbiota plays crucial roles in immunity, metabolism and endocrinology, the effects of antibiotics on the microbiota may lead to further health complications. In this review, we present an overview of the effects of antibiotics on the microbiome in children, and correlate them to long-lasting complications of obesity, behavior, allergies, autoimmunity and other diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations258
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology ReviewsSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207