Immunomodulatory effects of probiotic supplementation in patients with asthma: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is considered to be a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways. Probiotics are living microorganisms that are found in the human gut and have protective effects against a wide range of diseases such as allergies. The aim of this study was to investigate the improvement of clinical asthma symptoms and changes in the expression pattern of selective microRNAs in patients with asthma and the changes in IL-4 and IFN-γ plasma levels after receiving probiotics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 40 asthmatic patients. They were treated with probiotics or placebo: 1 capsule/day for 8 weeks. Pulmonary function tests, IL-4 and IFN-γ levels, and expression of microRNAs were assessed at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: The results showed that the expression of miR-16, miR146-a and IL-4 levels in patients with asthma after receiving probiotic supplementation was significantly reduced and miR-133b expression was increased. In addition, pulmonary function tests showed a significant improvement in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s and Forced Vital Capacity after receiving probiotics. CONCLUSION: In our study, 8-week treatment with probiotic supplementation led to reduced Th2 cells-associated IL-4 and improved Forced Expiratory Volume and Forced Vital Capacity. It appears probiotics can be used in addition to common asthma treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".