Delphi Consensus Statement on the Role of Probiotics in the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by intense itching and recurrent eczematous lesions. Important factors in the etiopathogenesis of AD include genetic predisposition, epidermal barrier dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and gut and skin dysbiosis. Probiotics could be a potential preventive strategy for allergies including AD through immune system modulation as well as enhancement of the epithelial barrier integrity. To further understand the role of probiotics in the management of AD, a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices (KAP) survey was conducted. Materials and methods A steering committee comprising nine experts formulated consensus recommendations on the role of probiotics in the management of AD and associated flare-ups through the use of the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices questionnaire while analyzing literature reviews and responses from a national panel consisting of 175 members. The evidence strength and quality were evaluated based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria. The acceptance of expert opinions as recommendations was considered upon receiving an endorsement from ≥70% of the panelists, as indicated by a Likert scale. Results The national panel emphasized that the improvement in nutritional status, immunomodulatory properties, and beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and skin support the use of probiotics in AD. The panel agreed that probiotics should be a part of the complementary therapy in the management of AD and associated flare-ups. Mostly, a probiotics supplementation duration of eight to 12 weeks is preferred by dermatologists. Probiotics, when used as an adjuvant therapy, may serve as a strategy to reduce steroid usage or maintenance therapy in high-risk cases with flares. Conclusion A Delphi-mediated KAP response provides a real-life approach to the use of probiotics in the management of AD. It suggests that probiotics could be useful as an adjuvant therapy in the management of AD and associated flare-ups when used along with traditional treatment.
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 | 0.127 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".