Can a Prebiotic Formulation Reduce Frailty Levels in Older People?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether a prebiotic formulation reduces frailty index (FI) levels in older people. DESIGN: We conducted secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind design study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study included non-demented people over the age of 65 who were living in nursing homes and were able to walk. Fifty participants completed the study (75.3±7.3 years, 70% females). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to either a group who received daily Darmocare Pre® (inulin and fructooligosaccharides) for 13 weeks or a placebo group (maltodextrin). MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome in this secondary analysis was change in level of a 62-item FI compared to baseline. RESULTS: At the 13-week follow-up, the placebo group had higher FI levels (preFI 0.23±0.11, postFI 0.24±0.12, p=0.012) and the intervention group had lower FI levels (preFI 0.22±0.09, postFI 0.20±0.08, p<0.001). There was an average increase of 0.01±0.01 in the FI score in the placebo group (0.4 deficits; Cohen's d 0.61; standardized response mean 0.59) and an average reduction of 0.02±0.02 in the intervention group (1.1 deficits; Cohen's d -1.35; standardized response mean -1.16). Among the 28 participants in the intervention group, FI levels were reduced for 25 people; five of them had an FI reduction greater than 0.03. The moderately/severely frail participants (FI >0.3, N=5) had the greatest reduction in their FI (0.04±0.01). CONCLUSION: A prebiotic intervention can reduce frailty levels in nursing home residents especially in those with higher levels of frailty.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".