The potential of live biotherapeutic products in allergic disease: current findings and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the global prevalence of allergic disease continuing to rise at an alarming rate, the need for effective and safe therapeutics is paramount. Given the critical role of the early-life microbiota on immune development, emerging research suggests the potential use of live biotherapeutic products (LBP) for the prevention and treatment of childhood allergy. However, findings are limited and inconsistent. Therefore, the present review critically evaluates the current animal and human data on the therapeutic value of LBPs in allergy, the underlying immunological mechanisms by which LBPs may mediate allergy susceptibility, limitations of the current research that need to be addressed, and future research directions. Accordingly, LBPs may protect against allergic disease through several immunological and physiological mechanisms during early-life, including regulation of Th1/Th2 balance, SCFA-induced activation of GPR41/43 and HDAC inhibition, and maturation of epithelial barrier integrity. Taken together, current findings indicate powerful immunomodulatory properties of LBPs on allergic immune response, with LBPs offering exciting potential as a novel therapeutic tool for childhood allergy. However, the efficacy of LBPs in allergy is complex and influenced by many population and methodological factors, resulting in varied therapeutic benefits. While research thus far has focused on traditional probiotic strains, greater investigation into microbial consortiums selected from the microbiota of non-allergic infants may provide greater promise as a therapeutic tool for allergic disease. Further investigation, particularly into long-term efficacy, strain-specific effects, optimal supplementation regimes, and use of multi-strain consortiums, is necessary before findings can be translated into clinical applications to tackle childhood allergic disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".