Xylooligosaccharidesand Arabinoxylanoligosaccharides and Their Application as Prebiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Xylooligosaccharides and arabinoxylanoligosaccharides have been subject to nearly 30 years of in vitro and clinical trials, and advances in process technology have led to more widespread commercial availability. This review was conducted to examine xylooligosaccharides and arabinoxylanoligosaccharides as next generation prebiotics. Results and Conclusion: Xylooligosaccharides and arabinoxylanoligosaccharides are based upon 5-carbon sugars, and their microbial utilization in the digestive tract is thus fundamentally different from prebiotics such as fructooligosaccharides, inulin, and resistant starch that are oligomers/polymers of 6-carbon sugars connected by α bonds. Five carbon sugars and oligosaccharides connected by β bonds are more narrowly utilized; xylooligosaccharides and arabinoxylanoligosaccharidesare especially effective for selective feeding of Bifidobacteria, although they can also be used by some strains of Lactobacilli and other bacteria. Clinical studies on xylooligosaccharides and arabinoxylanoligosaccharides report beneficial impacts upon digestive health, management of blood sugars and lipids, beneficial modification of immune markers, and benefits for laxation. These outcomes have typically been observed at 1-4 grams per day, a lower dose than required for other prebiotics such as fructooligosaccharides and inulin. The lower dose requirement for clinical efficacy also provides advantages in terms of product formulation and more options for delivery of a clinically beneficial dose to consumers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".