The effect of a probiotic on gastrointestinal symptoms due to menstruation in healthy adult women on oral contraceptives: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For many women, uncomfortable and stressful symptoms accompany the menstrual cycle each month, sometimes in a debilitating manner. Previous studies have reported that gastrointestinal symptoms in healthy women significantly differ by the day of the menstrual cycle, but few studies have assessed interventions intended to minimize these symptoms. Probiotics supplements have been shown to attenuate gastrointestinal symptom severity as well as self-reported feelings of stress in various populations. This study evaluates the effect of a probiotic on abdominal pain and gastrointestinal symptoms in healthy women who take an oral contraceptive, have regular menses, and typically experience these symptoms during menstruation with the primary aim being change in abdominal pain intensity related to the menstrual cycle with probiotic versus placebo supplementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel study, participants will receive either a probiotic or placebo supplement. Participants will begin answering questionnaires approximately 7 days before the start of menstruation (i.e., active bleeding), and 3 days later, they will begin consuming the study supplement for 8 weeks. The questionnaires administered will collect data about abdominal pain severity (primary outcome) and duration related to the menstrual cycle, digestive health, dietary intake, stress, and digestion-associated quality-of-life. A subgroup of women will provide weekly vaginal swabs and stool samples to examine the effect of the probiotic supplement on microbiota composition and diversity for exploratory purposes. Two-sided tests using a linear model and a type I error rate of α = 0.05 will be employed to test all hypotheses. Continuous variables will be presented as means with standard errors and categorical variables, as counts or proportions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board 01. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to any study activities. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and publication in the trial registry or in a peer-reviewed journal. Any protocol amendments will be reported in the final manuscript of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04457401 . Registered prospectively on 07 July 2020. The trial was completed in December of 2021. PROTOCOL VERSION: V4.0 (11-04-2020) TRIAL STATUS: Currently recruiting. Recruitment began in November 2020 and extend until December 2021.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.005 |
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".