The Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Probiotics on Depression: Clinical Results From an Open-Label Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A growing body of research has shown that consumption of probiotics can improve symptoms associated with mood and anxiety disorders through activity of the gut-brain axis. However, the effects of probiotics have yet to be tested in a clinical sample of treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The aim of this 8-week, open-label pilot study is to examine changes in depressive symptoms before and after the introduction of a probiotic supplement in 10 treatment-naïve MDD patients and to provide data on the feasibility of conducting a larger double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in the same patient population. Here we report on the clinical outcome measures of the study. Methods: Participants recruited from the community in Kingston, Ontario, Canada consumed a probiotic supplement containing Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175 (CEREBIOME ® ) at a dose of 3 × 10 9 CFU once per day for 8 weeks. Clinical symptoms of depression were measured using a validated battery of clinical scales and self-report questionnaires (CAN-BIND protocol). Data was collected at baseline, week 4, and week 8. Results: Significant improvements in affective clinical symptoms were observed at week 4 and were sustained at week 8. Significant improvements in subjective sleep quality were observed by week 8. No side effects or adverse effects associated with the probiotic supplement were observed. Conclusions: The findings from this study support the existing evidence in this emerging field for probiotics having a role in alleviating symptoms of depression in treatment-naïve, moderately depressed patients and indicate that the probiotic supplement is safe and well-tolerated in this population. However, further comprehensive studies are required to draw conclusions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".