MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154661783 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa369

Probiotic stool secretory immunoglobulin A modulation in children with gastroenteritis: a randomized clinical trial

2020· article· en· W3154661783 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen B. Freedman, Rachael G. Horne, Kathene C. Johnson‐Henry, Jianling Xie, Sarah Williamson-Urquhart, Linda Chui, Bonita E. Lee, Suzanne Schuh, Yaron Finkelstein, Serge Gouin, Ken J. Farion, Naveen Poonai, Katrina Hurley, David Schnadower, Philip M. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioDalhousie UniversityWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineSickKids FoundationWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick ChildrenAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsProbioticRandomized controlled trialMedicineSecretory IgAAntibodyImmunoglobulin AImmunologyInternal medicineImmunoglobulin GBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We previously conducted the Probiotic Regimen for Outpatient Gastroenteritis Utility of Treatment (PROGUT) study, which identified no improvements in children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) administered a probiotic. However, the aforementioned study did not evaluate immunomodulatory benefits. OBJECTIVES: The object of this study was to determine if stool secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) concentrations in children with AGE increase more among participants administered a Lactobacillus rhamnosus/helveticus probiotic compared with those administered placebo. METHODS: This a priori planned multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled ancillary study enrolled children presenting for emergency care who received a 5-d probiotic or placebo course. Participants submitted stool specimens on days 0, 5, and 28. The primary endpoint was the change in stool sIgA concentrations on day 5 compared with baseline. RESULTS: A total of 133 (n = 66 probiotic, 67 placebo) of 886 PROGUT participants (15.0%) provided all 3 specimens. Median stool sIgA concentrations did not differ between the probiotic and placebo groups at any of the study time points: day 0 median (IQR): 1999 (768, 4071) compared with 2198 (702, 5278) (P = 0.27, Cohen's d = 0.17); day 5: 2505 (1111, 5310) compared with 3207 (982, 7080) (P = 0.19, Cohen's d = 0.16); and day 28: 1377 (697, 2248) compared with 1779 (660, 3977) (P = 0.27, Cohen's d = 0.19), respectively. When comparing measured sIgA concentrations between days 0 and 5, we found no treatment allocation effects [β: -0.24 (-0.65, 0.18); P = 0.26] or interaction between treatment and specimen collection day [β: -0.003 (-0.09, 0.09); P = 0.95]. Although stool sIgA decreased between day 5 and day 28 within both groups (P < 0.001), there were no differences between the probiotic and placebo groups in the median changes in sIgA concentrations when comparing day 0 to day 5 median (IQR) [500 (-1135, 2362) compared with 362 (-1122, 4256); P = 0.77, Cohen's d = 0.075] and day 5 to day 28 [-1035 (-3130, 499) compared with -1260 (-4437, 843); P = 0.70, Cohen's d = 0.067], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of an L. rhamnosus/helveticus probiotic, relative to placebo, on stool IgA concentrations. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01853124.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207