MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098534314 · doi:10.3390/nu12113443

Effects of a Fermented Dairy Drink Containing Lacticaseibacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei CNCM I-1518 (Lactobacillus casei CNCM I-1518) and the Standard Yogurt Cultures on the Incidence, Duration, and Severity of Common Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020· review· en· W3098534314 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa Poon, Justine Juana, Daniel Noori, Stephanie Jeansen, Amira Pierucci‐Lagha, Kathy Musa‐Veloso

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
FundersDanone Nutricia Research
KeywordsLactobacillus paracaseiLactobacillus caseiOdds ratioConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)ProbioticPopulationMedicineFood scienceBiologyInternal medicineLactobacillusFermentationMathematicsEnvironmental healthBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable interest in the role of probiotics in immune function. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of the consumption of a fermented dairy drink containing Lacticaseibacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei CNCM I-1518 (the previous taxonomic nomenclature was Lactobacillus casei CNCM I-1518, prior to the nomenclature change in April 2020) and the standard yogurt cultures (hereinafter referred to collectively as “FDD”) on common infectious diseases (CIDs) in generally healthy children and adults. Nine literature databases were searched, and nine randomized controlled trials from eight publications were eligible for inclusion. Combined effect sizes were determined for three metrics of CID incidence, two metrics of CID duration, and one metric of CID severity. Compared to the control, the consumption of the FDD resulted in (1) a significant reduction in the odds of experiencing ≥1 CID (odds ratio (OR) (with a 95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.81 (0.66, 0.98); p = 0.029); (2) a significant reduction in mean CIDs per subject (−0.09 (−0.15, −0.04); p = 0.001); and (3) a trend towards reduced risk in cumulative CIDs (relative risk (RR): 0.91 (0.82, 1.01); p = 0.082). The consumption of the FDD had no significant effect on CID duration or severity. Based on the studies conducted thus far, these results suggest that the FDD may reduce CID incidence in the general population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.029
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207