MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295338873 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100748

A randomized controlled trial of an oral probiotic to reduce antepartum group B Streptococcus colonization and gastrointestinal symptoms

2022· article· en· W4295338873 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leona VandeVusse, Marie Forgie, Emily Malloy, Maharaj Singh, Maryanne Scherer, Diana Kleber, Jonah Dixon, Andrew J. Hryckowian, Nasia Safdar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentAurora Research InstituteSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-MadisonNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsStreptococcusProbioticGroup BMedicineGestationRandomized controlled trialLactobacillusInternal medicinePregnancyObstetricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Probiotics have been suggested as a strategy to reduce antenatal group B Streptococcus colonization. Although probiotics are known to improve gastrointestinal symptoms, this has not been studied during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a probiotic to reduce: (1) standard-of-care antenatal group B Streptococcus colonization and colony counts and (2) gastrointestinal symptoms of pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: In a double-blind fashion, 109 healthy adult pregnant people were randomized to Florajen3 probiotic or placebo capsules once daily from 28 weeks' gestation until labor onset. Baseline vaginal and rectal study swabs for group B Streptococcus colony-forming units and microbiome analysis were collected at 28 and 36 weeks' gestation. Standard-of-care vaginal to rectal group B Streptococcus swabs were collected from all participants at 36 weeks' gestation and determined the need for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. Data collection included solicitation of adverse events, demographic information, Antepartum Gastrointestinal Symptom Assessment score, yogurt ingestion, sexual activity, and vaginal cleaning practices. RESULTS: A total of 83 participants completed the study to 36 weeks' gestation with no adverse events. Standard-of-care group B Streptococcus colonization was 20.4% in the control group and 15.4% in probiotic group participants (-5%; P=.73). The relative risk for positive standard-of-care vaginal-rectal group B Streptococcus colonization was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-3.40) times higher in the control group than in the probiotic group (P=.55). There were no differences in median vaginal (P=.16) or rectal (P=.20) group B streptococcus colony-forming units at baseline or at 36 weeks (vaginal P>.999; rectal P=.56). Antepartum Gastrointestinal Symptom Assessment scores were similar at baseline (P=.19), but significantly decreased in probiotic group participants at 36 weeks (P=.02). No covariates significantly altered group B Streptococcus colonization. Significantly more Florajen3 bacteria components were recovered from the vaginal-rectal samples of probiotic group participants (32%; P=.04) compared with controls. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provided insufficient evidence for the clinical application of the Florajen3 probiotic intervention to reduce standard-of-care vaginal-rectal group B Streptococcus colonization. The prevalence of group B Streptococcus was lower than expected in the study population, and intervention adherence was poor. Probiotic bacteria colonization of the genitourinary tract occurred more in intervention group participants than in controls and significantly reduced gastrointestinal symptoms of pregnancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207