MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205605338 · doi:10.1155/2022/3837418

The Probiotics in Pediatric Asthma Management (PROPAM) Study in the Primary Care Setting: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Trial with Ligilactobacillus salivarius LS01 (DSM 22775) and Bifidobacterium breve B632 (DSM 24706)

2022· article· en· W4205605338 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immunology Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBifidobacterium breveLactobacillus salivariusProbioticAsthmaPlaceboMedicinePopulationRandomized controlled trialExhaled nitric oxideImmunologyInternal medicineBifidobacteriumGastroenterologyPediatricsLactobacillusBiologyFood scienceSpirometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Type-2 inflammation commonly marks asthma in childhood. Also, gut and lung dysbiosis is detectable in patients with asthma. Strain-related probiotic supplementation may restore a physiological immune response, dampen airway inflammation, and repair dysbiosis. Therefore, the probiotics in pediatric asthma management (PROPAM) study is aimed at demonstrating that Ligilactobacillus salivarius LS01 (DSM 22775) and Bifidobacterium breve B632 (DSM 24706) mixture could reduce asthma exacerbations in children, followed in a primary care setting. Methods. The study was randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind. It involved 11 Italian primary care pediatricians. The probiotic mixture (containing Ligilactobacillus salivarius LS01 <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><a:mn>1</a:mn><a:mo>×</a:mo><a:msup><a:mrow><a:mn>10</a:mn></a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mn>9</a:mn></a:mrow></a:msup></a:math> live cells and Bifidobacterium breve B632 <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><c:mn>1</c:mn><c:mo>×</c:mo><c:msup><c:mrow><c:mn>10</c:mn></c:mrow><c:mrow><c:mn>9</c:mn></c:mrow></c:msup></c:math> live cells) or placebo was taken twice daily (1 sachet in the morning and 1 in the evening) for eight weeks and subsequently once daily for a further eight weeks. Outcomes included number, severity, and duration of asthma exacerbations, intensity of maintenance and as need treatments, and safety. Results. The per-protocol population included 422 children (mean age seven years, 240 males and 182 females). The probiotic mixture significantly reduced the number of asthmatic exacerbations ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><e:mtext>OR</e:mtext><e:mo>=</e:mo><e:mn>3.17</e:mn></e:math> ). In addition, the number of children with two exacerbations was less than a third in the active group ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><g:mtext>OR</g:mtext><g:mo>=</g:mo><g:mn>3.65</g:mn></g:math> ). Conclusions. This PROPAM study demonstrated that probiotic strains Ligilactobacillus salivarius LS01 (DSM 22775) and Bifidobacterium breve B632 (DSM 24706) were safe and significantly reduced by more than a third the frequency of asthma exacerbations. At present, the first-line treatment of asthma is still drug-based, but specific strains of probiotics may be auxiliary remedies.

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.257 · 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