Effect of probiotic interventions on depressive symptoms: A narrative review evaluating systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is one of the most prevalent mental illnesses and is often associated with various other medical disorders. Since the 1980s, the primary pharmacological treatment has been antidepressants, but due to the recent discovery of the association between the gut microbiome and mental health, probiotics have been proposed as an adjunctive or alternate treatment. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a holistic perspective by synthesizing and evaluating existing evidence, discussing key biological mechanisms, exploring the history of probiotic use, and appreciating the influence of modern diet on mental health. Five online databases were searched for relevant studies up to December 2017. Systematic reviews that included randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of depressive symptoms were included. Seven systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Three of these reviews conducted meta-analyses, out of which, two concluded that probiotics improved depressive symptoms in the sample population. Out of the four reviews that conducted qualitative analysis, three reviews concluded that probiotics have the potential to be used as a treatment. Due to the differences in clinical trials, a definitive effect of probiotics on depressive symptoms cannot be concluded. Nonetheless, probiotics seem to potentially produce a significant therapeutic effect for subjects with pre-existing depressive symptoms. Further studies are warranted for definitive conclusions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".