MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169009686 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzab054_038

Use and Acceptance of the Clinical Guide to Probiotic Products Available in Canada and in US: Translating Scientific Evidence to Clinical Practice Since 2008

2021· article· en· W3169009686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dragana Skokovic-Sunjic

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticScientific evidenceClinical trialProduct (mathematics)MedicineBifidobacteriumBiologyLactobacillusPathologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This clinical reference tool is independently designed to translate scientific evidence available up to date for commercially available probiotic products into practical, clinically relevant information, enabling clinicians to easily select the appropriate product, dose, and format for a specific indication. Published studies with defined clinical outcomes for probiotic strain(s) were searched using defined inclusion criteria. Commercially available products containing said strain(s) were identified, and the Levels of Recommendation were used to rate the strength of the evidence. This information was compiled into a chart form, assessed by independent expert reviewers. This guide is a clinical decision-making tool to assist health care professionals in providing evidence-based recommendations for their patients. In the case of probiotics, the clinical evidence supports only certain formulations/brand names of the probiotics (including the genus, species, alphanumeric designation or strain, number of live bacteria present, the blend of probiotic strains present, and finally, the non-active ingredients present). The authors made every attempt to include the published clinical data for the available probiotic formulations. In the clinical guide, the available strains were organized based on probiotic strain(s), doses, and evaluated evidence levels based on our pre-defined criteria. This document is easily accessible in print and digital formats (websites and mobile apps). There is evidence to support the use of oral and vaginal probiotic products for various aspects of human health, however, applications and results are strain-specific and disease or symptom-specific. Due to frequent changes in commercial availability of probiotic strains, newly published evidence, and growing research, an annual review and updates of this Clinical Guide have been conducted since 2008. Lack of adverse effects supports the widespread use of these products, and further investigation is recommended. Abstract submission is supported by an unrestricted education grant provided by the Alliance for Education on Probiotics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207