Pediatric probiotic culture survival study in acidic pH using an in vitro model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are two genera of bacteria in probiotics that are known to possess significant immunomodulatory health-promoting properties. Probiotics are allowed to be used in foods and vitamins by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with little regulation as long as there are no claims to treat any disorder or condition. Regulatory agencies throughout the word classify and define probiotics differently with an uncertainty on the efficacy. The viability of bacterial strains influence probiotic stability and properties can be influenced by manufacturing and storage processes. It is imperative to also consider the viability of the probiotics after consumption. The aim of this study was to investigate the survival of the strains in the commercial probiotic Lovebug in acidic conditions modeling the human upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract in vitro. To test the ability of probiotics strains in the Lovebug probiotic to survive under acidic conditions, we incubated the probiotics in degassed acidified 0.8% sodium chloride at various pH levels for 2 h and measured the resulting colony forming units. Our study observed an overall survival of approximately 20–40 % after being incubated for 2 hours at pH 2–4. This supports that the bacterial genera of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in the probiotic Lovebug would likely survive at a high enough rate in the human upper GI tract to provide benefit to the pediatric population.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".