MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

An Evaluation of a Multi‐strain Probiotic Supplement on General Wellness in Healthy Adults: A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Dose‐Response Study

2017· article· en· W2942993601 on OpenAlexaff
Asmaa Fatani, Amanda Ford, Wendy J. Dahl, Thomas A. Tompkins, Stéphanie‐Anne Girard, Mary C. Christman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticMedicineLactobacillus rhamnosusBifidobacterium longumPediococcus acidilacticiBifidobacterium breveLactobacillus caseiAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialPlaceboGastrointestinal functionLactobacillus plantarumLactobacillusBifidobacteriumInternal medicineFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many species of bacteria have been evaluated and marketed as probiotics, little work has examined the dose‐response effects of probiotics on microbiota and host. A probiotic formulation, containing Lactobacillus helveticus R0052, Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011, Lactobacillus casei R0215, Pediococcus acidilactici R1001, Bifidobacterium breve R0070, Bifidobacterium longum BB536, Lactobacillus plantarum R1012 and Lactobacillus lactis ssp. lactis R1058, is currently marketed in the U.S. at 5 billion colony forming units (CFU)/capsule and 25 billion CFU/capsule doses. To determine the effects of the two doses of the multi‐strain probiotic supplements on gastrointestinal function and general wellbeing, a six‐week, randomized, double‐blind, dose‐response study was conducted with 69 healthy adults (18–50 years old). Participants were randomly assigned to receive the probiotic mix at 5 billion CFU, 25 billion CFU, or placebo for four weeks. Daily questionnaires were used to assess gastrointestinal symptoms and general wellness, specifically gastrointestinal distress symptoms, ear‐nose‐throat symptoms, epidermal symptoms, psychological health, cephalic symptoms, emetic symptoms, diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, and hunger. Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) was used as a proxy of transit time. In addition, the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) was administered weekly to further evaluate gastrointestinal symptoms. General wellness and gastrointestinal symptoms were not affected by the consumption of the multi‐strain probiotic at doses of 5 or 25 billion CFU. In addition, BSFS analysis showed no significant change in relative transit time among treatments. No serious adverse events were reported. Therefore, the multi‐strain probiotic formulation is well tolerated by healthy adults at 5 billion and 25 billion CFU per day. Support or Funding Information Lallemand Health Solutions, Inc.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→