Probiotic Potential in Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are prevalent gastrointestinal disorders with significant global prevalence. Conventional treatments often have adverse effects, prompting interest in probiotics as alternative therapies. This systematic review assesses the efficacy of probiotics in managing symptoms and improving outcomes in adult patients with IBS and IBD. A comprehensive search was conducted across databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar and registers ClinicalTrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN). Using targeted keywords, studies on probiotic efficacy in adult IBS and IBD patients were identified. Data screening, extraction, and quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for evaluating randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies were rigorously performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. From the initial 22,037 references, 18 randomized control trials and two observational studies encompassing 2,675 adults, aged 18-76 years, were deemed eligible. The efficacy of probiotics for IBS and IBD is variable. While some IBS trials show symptom improvement, the results are inconsistent, likely due to the diversity of probiotic strains and patient populations studied. In contrast, probiotics demonstrate more consistent benefits for ulcerative colitis (UC) in IBD, particularly with specific formulations like the De Simone combination. However, probiotics' effects on Crohn's disease (CD) remain less clear, highlighting the need for further research to optimize probiotic regimens and understand their differential effects across the spectrum of IBS and IBD.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".