Examining the cognitive benefits of probiotic supplementation in physically active older adults: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of dementia is projected to increase with the growing older adult population and prevention strategies are urgently needed. Two promising interventions include physical activity (PA) and probiotic supplementation, with initial findings suggesting their combined use may confer greater cognitive benefits than either intervention alone. However, no study has yet examined the effects of probiotic supplementation on cognitive function in healthy, physically active older adults. The present study used archival data from a randomized clinical trial including 127 physically active, middle-aged to older adults (average age 64.3 years) with self-reported PA levels meeting or exceeding recommendations to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation ( Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG; L.GG) on cognitive outcomes. Repeated measures ANOVAs showed no significant changes in cognitive performance from baseline to follow up as an effect of L.GG consumption. These results suggest that probiotic supplementation may not improve cognitive function in persons already engaged in high levels of PA. Future research should include prospective studies to determine whether long-term use of probiotic supplementation may help prevent cognitive decline. Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov; study # NCT03080818. Novelty: Initial research shows promising cognitive benefits of combined PA and probiotics consumption. L.GG did not lead to acute cognitive improvements for older adults already meeting PA guidelines. Prospective studies examining prevention of cognitive decline with probiotics in healthy and clinical samples are much needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".