Can Diet Alter the Intestinal Barrier Permeability in Healthy People? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary factors can modify the function of the intestinal barrier, causing permeability changes. This systematic review analyzed evidence on the link between diet or dietary interventions and changes in intestinal barrier permeability (IBP) in healthy individuals. A systematic search for primary studies was conducted using the virtual databases EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus. This review adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, assessing the methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and ROB 2.0 for randomized clinical trials. Out of 3725 studies recovered, 12 were eligible for review. Chicory inulin and probiotics reduced IBP in adults with a moderate GRADE level of evidence. The opposite result was obtained with fructose, which increased IBP in adults, with a very low GRADE level of evidence. Only intervention studies with different dietary components were found, and few studies evaluated the effect of specific diets on the IBP. Thus, there was no strong evidence that diet or dietary interventions increase or decrease IBP in healthy individuals. Studies on this topic are necessary, with a low risk of bias and good quality of evidence generated, as there is still little knowledge on healthy populations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".