MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392364649 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2023-0449

Safety and efficacy of a probiotic cocktail containing <i>P. acidilactici</i> and <i>L. plantarum</i> for gastrointestinal discomfort in endurance runners: randomized double-blinded crossover clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4392364649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Lennon, Thomas Lackie, Adriana Miltko, Zoey C. Kearns, Maxime R. Paquette, Richard J. Bloomer, Anyou Wang, Mariè van der Merwe

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticMedicinePediococcus acidilacticiIntestinal permeabilityCrossover studyInternal medicinePlaceboLactobacillus plantarumPopulationGastroenterologyBiologyLactic acidPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probiotics are increasingly used to treat conditions associated with gastrointestinal injury and permeability, including exercise-induced gastrointestinal discomfort. This study assessed safety and efficacy of a probiotic in altering the intestinal milieu and mitigating gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) in endurance runners. In a double blind, crossover study, 16 runners were randomized to 4 weeks of daily supplementation with a probiotic cocktail containing Pediococcus acidilactici bacteria and Lactobacillus plantarum or placebo. Fasting blood and stool samples were collected for measurement of gut permeability markers, immune parameters, and microbiome analyses. Treadmill run tests were performed before and after treatment; participants ran at 65%–70% of VO2max at 27 °C for a maximum of 90 min or until fatigue/GIS developed. A blood sample was collected after the treadmill run test. In healthy individuals, 4 weeks of probiotic supplementation did not alter health parameters, although a marginal reduction in aspartate aminotransferase levels was observed with probiotic treatment only ( p = 0.05). GIS, gut permeability-associated parameters (intestinal fatty acid binding protein, lipopolysaccharide binding protein, zonulin, and cytokines), and intestinal microbial content were not altered by the probiotic supplementation. Post-run measurements of GIS and gut-associated parameters did not differ between groups; however, the observed lack of differences is confounded by an absence of measurable functional outcome as GIS was not sufficiently induced during the run. Under the current study conditions, the probiotic was safe to use, and did not affect gut- or immune-associated parameters, or intestinal symptoms in a healthy population. The probiotic might reduce tissue damage, but more studies are warranted.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→