Impact of a probiotic product on bowel habits and microbial profile in participants with functional constipation: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of a multi-strain probiotic product on bowel habits and microbial profile in participants with functional constipation. METHODS: CFU/day), consisting of Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis UABla-12, Bifidobacterium longum UABl-14 and Bifidobacterium bifidum UABb-10 over 4 weeks. Outcomes included the patient assessment of constipation-symptom (PAC-SYM) questionnaire, stool frequency and consistency, and microbial profile. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in the PAC-SYM score, despite significant within-group differences (P < 0.001) over the study period. The probiotic group showed a faster normalization of stool frequency and consistency, with most participants achieving a normalized profile after 1 week. Fecal samples of the probiotic group exhibited higher relative abundance of Ruminococcaceae (P = 0.0047), including the Ruminococcus genus, and lower relative abundance of Erysipelotrichaceae (P = 0.0172) at end-point compared with baseline. Placebo group samples showed similar abundance profiles over the study, with the exception of Clostridiaceae, which was lower at the study end-point (P = 0.0033). Among treated participants, all four probiotic strains were significantly more abundant after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in symptomology, with both groups showing a more than 20% improvement. However, the probiotic helped modulate bowel function earlier than the placebo, with a corresponding shift to a more fibrolytic microbiota.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".