Probiotic Mixture Containing Lactobacillus helveticus, Bifidobacterium longum and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Affects Brain Responses to an Arithmetic Stress Task in Healthy Subjects: A Randomised Clinical Trial and Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probiotics are suggested to impact physiological and psychological stress responses by acting on the gut-brain axis. We investigated if a probiotic product containing Bifidobacterium longum R0175, Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum R1012 affected stress processing in a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover proof-of-concept study (NCT03615651). Twenty-two healthy subjects (24.2 ± 3.4 years, 6 men/16 women) underwent a probiotic and placebo intervention for 4 weeks each, separated by a 4-week washout period. Subjects were examined by functional magnetic resonance imaging while performing the Montreal Imaging Stress Task (MIST) as well as an autonomic nervous system function assessment during the Stroop task. Reduced activation in regions of the lateral orbital and ventral cingulate gyri was observed after probiotic intervention compared to placebo. Significantly increased functional connectivity was found between the upper limbic region and medioventral area. Interestingly, probiotic intervention seemed to predominantly affect the initial stress response. Salivary cortisol secretion during the task was not altered. Probiotic intervention did not affect cognitive performance and autonomic nervous system function during Stroop. The probiotic intervention was able to subtly alter brain activity and functional connectivity in regions known to regulate emotion and stress responses. These findings support the potential of probiotics as a non-pharmaceutical treatment modality for stress-related disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".