Early life antibiotics and childhood gastrointestinal disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In adults, there is increasing evidence for an association between antibiotic use and gastrointestinal (GI) disorders but in children, the evidence is scarce. Objective: Assess the association between exposure to antibiotics in the first 2 years of life in term born children and the presence of chronic GI disorders later in childhood. Design: For this systematic review the MEDLINE, Embase, WHO trial register and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 8 June 2020. Title and abstract screening (n=12 219), full-text screening (n=132) as well as the quality assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were independently performed by two researchers. Main outcome measures: The association between antibiotics and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n=6), eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) (n=5), coeliac disease (CeD) (n=6), infantile colics (n=3), functional constipation (n=2), recurrent abdominal pain, regurgitation, functional diarrhoea and infant dyschezia were examined. Results: Twenty-two studies were included, 11 cohort and 11 case-control studies. A best evidence synthesis showed strong evidence for an association between antibiotic exposure in the first 2 years of life and the presence of IBD, and CeD during childhood. Moderate evidence was found for an association with EoE and no association with functional constipation in the first year of life. There was insufficient evidence for the other studied disorders. Conclusions: The use of antibiotics in early life may increase the risk of GI disorders later in life. Further studies are necessary to unravel the underlying mechanisms and determine potential preventive measures. Meanwhile judicious use of antibiotics in early childhood is highly warranted. PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019132631.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".