Probiotic responder identification in cross-over trials for constipation using a Bayesian statistical model considering lags between intake and effect periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in microbiome research have led to the further development of microbial interventions, such as probiotics and prebiotics, which are potential treatments for constipation. However, the effects of probiotics vary from person to person; therefore, the effectiveness of probiotics needs to be verified for each individual. Individuals showing significant effects of the target probiotic are called responders. A statistical model for the evaluation of responders was proposed in a previous study. However, the previous model does not consider the lag between intake and effect periods of the probiotic. It is expected that the lag exists when probiotics are administered and when they are effective. In this study, we propose a Bayesian statistical model to estimate the probability that a subject is a responder, by considering the lag between intake and effect periods. In synthetic dataset experiments, the proposed model was found to outperform the base model, which did not factor in the lag. Further, we found that the proposed model could distinguish responders showing large uncertainty in terms of the lag between intake and effect periods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".