Association Between Diarrhea Duration and Severity and Probiotic Efficacy in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is unclear whether the alleged efficacy of probiotics in childhood acute gastroenteritis depends on the duration and severity of symptoms before treatment. METHODS: Preplanned secondary analysis of 2 randomized placebo-controlled trials in children 3-48 months of age was conducted in 16 emergency departments in North America evaluating the efficacy of 2 probiotic products (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and a combination probiotic: L. rhamnosus and L. helveticus). Participants were categorized in severity groups according to the duration (<24, 24-<72, and ≥72 hours) and the frequency of diarrhea episodes in the 24 hours (≤3, 4-5, and ≥6) before presentation. We used regression models to assess the interaction between pretreatment diarrhea severity groups and treatment arm (probiotic or placebo) in the presence of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis (Modified Vesikari Scale score ≥9). Secondary outcomes included diarrhea frequency and duration, unscheduled healthcare provider visits, and hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 1,770 children were included, and 882 (50%) received a probiotic. The development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis symptoms after the initiation of treatment did not differ between groups (probiotic-18.4% [162/882] vs placebo-18.3% [162/888]; risk ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.87, 1.16; P = 0.95). There was no evidence of interaction between baseline severity and treatment (P = 0.61) for the primary or any of the secondary outcomes: diarrhea duration (P = 0.88), maximum diarrheal episodes in a 24-hour period (P = 0.87), unscheduled healthcare visits (P = 0.21), and hospitalization (P = 0.87). DISCUSSION: In children 3-48 months with acute gastroenteritis, the lack of effect of probiotics is not explained by the duration of symptoms or frequency of diarrheal episodes before presentation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".