Probiotics and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children and adolescents: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in childhood is an increasing global public health issue with significant long-term consequences. NAFLD management mainly consists of lifestyle modifications, however, adjunct pharmacological therapies are currently lacking. Gut microbiota manipulation via probiotics may alter the course of pediatric NAFLD. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize all the available literature on the use of probiotics in children and adolescents with NAFLD. METHODS: PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for trials on the use of probiotics in pediatric NAFLD. A quantitative DerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise, a narrative summary of the study outcomes was presented and discussed. A separate search was completed to include all the ongoing registered trials on probiotics use in pediatric NAFLD. RESULTS: five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Of these, four trials were included in the final quantitative analysis. Probiotic therapy significantly reduced the levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (mean difference: -10.39 [-19.85, -0.93]), however significant heterogeneity between studies was identified (I2, 93 %). CONCLUSIONS: there is insufficient evidence to support probiotics in the treatment of pediatric NAFLD given the substantial degree of discordance amongst the available trials. Lifestyle modifications focusing on maintaining a normal BMI and regular exercise continue to be the gold standard approach to treating NAFLD in children.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".