The Effects of Oral Probiotics on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): A Clinical Trial Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains a global health concern. Emerging clinical trial (CT) evidence suggests that probiotic intervention may promote a healthy gut microbiome in individuals with T2DM, thereby improving management of the disease. This systematic literature review summarizes thirty-three CTs investigating the use of oral probiotics for the management of T2DM. Here, twenty-one studies (64%) demonstrated an improvement in at least one glycemic parameter, while fifteen studies (45%) showed an improvement in at least one lipid parameter. However, no article in this review was able to establish a uniform decrease in glycemic, lipid, or blood pressure profiles. The lack of consistency across the studies may be attributed to differences in probiotic composition, duration of probiotic consumption, and probiotic dose. An interesting finding of this literature review was the beneficial trend of metformin and probiotic co-administration. Here, patients with T2DM taking metformin demonstrated enhanced glycemic control via the co-administration of probiotics. Taken together, the overall positive findings reported across the studies in combination with minimal adverse effects constitute ground for further quality CTs. This review provides recommendations for future CTs that may address the shortcomings of the current studies and help to extract useful data from future investigations of the use of probiotics in T2DM management.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".