MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367554797 · doi:10.1080/19490976.2023.2201160

Probiotics to improve the gut microbiome in premature infants: are we there yet?

2023· review· en· W4367554797 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily M. Mercer, Marie‐Claire Arrieta

Bibliographic record

VenueGut Microbes · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsNecrotizing enterocolitisMicrobiomeMetabolomeProbioticGut microbiomeBiologySepsisGut floraImmune systemFormula feedingIntensive care medicineImmunologyBioinformaticsMedicinePediatricsBreast feedingMetabolomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gut microbiome maturation in infants born prematurely is uniquely influenced by the physiological, clinical, and environmental factors surrounding preterm birth and early life, leading to altered patterns of microbial succession relative to term infants during the first months of life. These differences in microbiome composition are implicated in acute clinical conditions that disproportionately affect preterm infants, including necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and late-onset sepsis (LOS). Probiotic supplementation initiated early in life is an effective prophylactic measure for preventing NEC, LOS, and other clinical concerns relevant to preterm infants. In parallel, reported benefits of probiotics on the preterm gut microbiome, metabolome, and immune function are beginning to emerge. This review summarizes the current literature on the influence of probiotics on the gut microbiome of preterm infants, outlines potential mechanisms by which these effects are exerted, and highlights important clinical considerations for determining the best practices for probiotic use in premature infants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations65
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGut MicrobesSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207