Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics on Frailty and Ageing: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, the population over the age of 60 is growing fast, but people age in different ways. Frailty, shown by the accumulation of age-related deficits, is a state of increased vulnerability to adverse outcomes among people of the same chronological age. Ageing results in a decline in diversity and homeostasis of microbiomes, and gut flora changes are related to health deficit accumulation and adverse health outcomes. In older people, health deficits including inappropriate intake, sarcopenia, physical inactivity, polypharmacy, and social vulnerability are factors associated with gut dysbiosis. The use of probiotics and prebiotics is a cost-effective and widely available intervention. Intake of probiotics and prebiotics may improve the homeostasis of gut microflora and prevent frailty and unhealthy aging. However, health effects vary among probiotics and prebiotics and among individual populations. This narrative review summarizes recent evidence about the relationship between prebiotic and probiotic consumption with health outcomes in older people.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".