MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092477052 · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00440

Intranasal Application of Lactococcus lactis W136 Is Safe in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patients With Previous Sinus Surgery

2020· article· en· W3092477052 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersMcMaster UniversityFaculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineChronic rhinosinusitisAdverse effectMicrobiomeSinusitisSinus (botany)Functional endoscopic sinus surgeryInternal medicineLactococcus lactisSurgeryBacteriaBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Modulation of the dysbiotic gut microbiome with 'healthy' bacteria via a stool transplant or supplementation is increasingly practiscd, however this approach has not been explored in the nasal passages. We wished to verify whether Lactococcus lactis W136 (L. lactis W136) bacteria could be safely applied via irrigation to the nasal and sinus passages in individuals with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with previous undergone endoscopic sinus surgery, and whether this was accompanied by bacterial community flora modification. Study Design: Prospective open-label pilot trial of safety and feasibility. Setting: Academic tertiary hospital centre Subjects and Methods: Twenty-four patients with CRS refractory to previous medical and surgical therapy received a 14-day course of BID sinus irrigations containing 1.2 x 109 CFU live L. lactis W136. Patients were monitored for safety using questionnaire, sinus endoscopy, otoscopy, UPSIT-40 smell testing, and endoscopically-obtained sinus culture. Assessors were blinded as to treatment phase. Physician assessors were blinded to treatment stage. Results: All 24 patients receiving at least one treatment successfully completed treatment. L. lactis W136 probiotic treatment was safe, with no major adverse events or new infections. Treatment was associated with improvement in sinus symptoms, QOL, and mucosal scores, which remained improved during the subsequent 14-day observation period. Microbiome changes associated with treatment were limited to an increase of the pathobiont Dolosigranulum Pigrum, a potential novel pathobiont. Subgroup analysis suggested differences in microbiomes and responses for CRSsNP and CRSwNP phenotypes. Conclusion: Intranasal irrigation of live L. lactis W136 bacteria to patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis was safe, and was associated with effects on symptoms, mucosal aspect and microbiome composition. Intranasal bacteria may thus find a role as a treatment strategy for CRS. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04048174. Funding: McGill Faculty of Medicine Grant

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it