Topical Probiotics for Women’s Urogenital Health: Selection of an Oil-based Carrier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaginal care products are widely used by women to relieve discomfort such as pain, itching and malodour, all of which are commonly caused by conditions resulting from microbiota dysbiosis. Previous studies showed that probiotic strains Lacticaseibacillus (formerly Lactobacillus) rhamnosus GR-1 (LGR-1) and Limosilactobacillus (formerly Lactobacillus) reuteri RC-14 (LRC-14), can aid in restoring homeostasis in the vaginal microbiome when taken orally. A topical product containing these strains could be of value for reducing malodour and improving quality of life. However, the formulation of such a product is a challenge, given that its ingredients must maintain shelf-life viability by excluding moisture. Here, we tested petroleum jelly, mineral oil, coconut oil, and olive oil for how well they maintained the viability of freeze-dried probiotic strains over a six-month timeframe. None of the oils caused excessive loss of bacterial viability, with petroleum jelly and coconut oil showing the most promise. Based on existing knowledge of these oils on the female genitalia, coconut oil and petroleum jelly could be suitable probiotic carriers for clinical testing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".