Efficacy of Lactobacillus paracasei HA-196 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175 in Alleviating Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specific probiotic strains can alleviate the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and psychiatric comorbidities of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the efficacy of Lactobacillus paracasei HA-196 (L. paracasei) and Bifidobacterium longum R0175 (B. longum) in reducing the GI and psychological symptoms of IBS was evaluated in 251 adults with either constipation (IBS-C), diarrhea (IBS-D), or mixed-pattern (IBS-M). Following a 2-week run-in period, participants were randomized to one of three interventions: L. paracasei (n = 84), B. longum (n = 83) or placebo (n = 81). IBS symptoms, stool frequency and consistency and quality of life were assessed by questionnaires. The differences from baseline in the severity of IBS symptoms at 4 and 8 weeks were similar between groups. Participants in this study were classified, after randomization, into subtypes according to Rome III. Within the L. paracasei group, complete spontaneous and spontaneous bowel movement frequency increased in participants with IBS-C (n = 10) after 8 weeks of supplementation (both p < 0.05) and decreased in participants with IBS-D (n = 10, p = 0.013). Both L. paracasei and B. longum supplementation improved the quality of life in emotional well-being and social functioning compared with baseline (all p < 0.05). In conclusion, L. paracasei and B. longum may reduce GI symptom severity and improve the psychological well-being of individuals with certain IBS subtypes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".