Probiotics for Constipation in Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether probiotics are effective for constipation, a common and often difficult-to-treat problem, in Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center trial, 280 patients with PD were screened, and 72 eligible patients were block-randomized (1:1) to receive either multistrain probiotics capsules (n = 34) or identical-appearing placebo (n = 38), for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the average number of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM) per week during the last 2 weeks of intervention compared with the 2-week preintervention phase, recorded by daily stool diary. Secondary outcome measures included changes in stool consistency, constipation severity score, and quality of life related to constipation. Satisfaction with intervention received was assessed. Change in levels of fecal calprotectin, a marker of intestinal inflammation, was an exploratory outcome. RESULTS: < 0.001). One patient (2.9%) in the treatment group withdrew due to a nonserious adverse event. Fecal calprotectin did not change significantly during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Multistrain probiotics treatment was effective for constipation in PD. Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of probiotics in PD, as well as their mechanisms of action. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03377322. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that, for people with PD, multistrain probiotics significantly increased the average number of SBM per week.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".