Maternal Intake of Probiotics to Program Offspring Health
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Probiotics intake may be considered beneficial by prospective and pregnant mothers, but their effects on offspring development are incompletely understood. The purpose of this review was to examine recent pre-clinical and clinical studies to understand how maternal probiotics exposure affects offspring health outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Effects were investigated in the context of supporting offspring growth, intestinal health, and gut microbiota, preventing allergic diseases, supporting neurodevelopment, and preventing metabolic disorders in pre-clinical and clinical studies. Most human studies focused on infancy outcomes, whereas pre-clinical studies also examined outcomes at adolescence and young adulthood. While still understudied, both pre-clinical and clinical studies propose epigenetic modifications as an underlying mechanism. Optimal timing of intervention remains unclear. Administration of selected probiotics to mothers has programming potential for sustaining life-long health of offspring. Administration protocols, specific windows of susceptibility, and individual-specific responses need to be further studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it