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)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 1×109 live cells and Bifidobacterium breve B632 1×109 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 ( OR=3.17 ). In addition, the number of children with two exacerbations was less than a third in the active group ( OR=3.65 ). 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".