Effects of Probiotics on Clinical Manifestations of Bronchiectasis: A Randomized, Triple Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bronchiectasis is a condition characterized by abnormal and permanent bronchial constriction that leads to sputum production and bronchial infection. The current study was done to evaluate the effects of symbiotic probiotics on the clinical manifestations and exacerbation of bronchiectasis. Materials and Methods: 26 patients in the placebo group (A) and 24 patients in the probiotic group (B) were allocated. In group A, patients took the placebo capsules two times daily for six months. In group B, patients took the LactoCare two times daily for six months. Results: . FEV1 and FVC/FEV1 ratios were higher in group B than in group A. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups A and B (P=0.908 vs 0.403). Conclusion: The symbiotic probiotics were not effective in the clinical improvement of bronchiectasis, consumption of antibiotics, the rate of pulmonary exacerbations with or without hospitalization, FEV1 and FEV1/FVC, and microbiological pattern.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".