Systematic review and meta‐analysis on the use of probiotic supplementation in pregnant mother, breastfeeding mother and infant for the prevention of atopic dermatitis in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotic supplementation may decrease the risk of allergic disease; however, there are differences between studies, such as the type of probiotic, the route or the duration of supplementation. Therefore, determining the most effective probiotic strain/s, route of administration and duration for clinical recommendation has been difficult. An electronic systematic literature search was undertaken between using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented for the studies. PEDro scale and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of the included studies. A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Strain-specific sub-meta-analyses indicated that single strains are not as effective as probiotic mixtures and administration to a combination of pregnant mothers, breastfeeding mothers and infants had a reduced risk in the onset of atopic dermatitis in children. Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that a mixture of probiotic supplementation given to the mother in pregnancy and continuing while breastfeeding and also to the infant in children classified as high-risk for atopic dermatitis and non-high-risk groups is the most efficacious in reducing the risk of incidence of atopic dermatitis in children.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".