A review of the use of probiotics in the treatment of ulcerative colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the colon and rectum.There is a constant need for improvements to be made in the current medical therapy since UC is extremely burdensome and kills many individuals.There are significant proportion of patients who experience adverse effects with current therapies.Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of UC are constantly being sought.Probiotics are living microorganisms that are meant to improve one's health whether taken orally or topically.Gut microbiota balance, gut barrier function, and host immune responses all benefit from probiotic microorganisms.Probiotic supplementation is therefore becoming an increasingly popular treatment approach for treating UC and reducing chronic inflammation while also enhancing patients' quality of life.In order to assess the clinical effectiveness of probiotics, we examined the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct, and Google Scholar.Probiotics are equally beneficial as conventional medication therapy in treating UC, according to several studies.Here, we've outlined the key findings of research that employed probiotics either alone or in conjunction with traditional UC treatment on individuals with UC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".