Probiotics’ supplementation alleviates disease severity and improves postural balance by repairing intestinal leak in patients suffering from osteoarthritis: a double-blinded clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increased intestinal leakiness and associated systemic inflammation are potential contributors to osteoarthritis (OA) and postural imbalance in the geriatric population. To date, no successful treatment to correct postural imbalance in OA is known. We aimed to explore the effects of a multistrain probiotic upon postural imbalance in OA-affected patients. In this randomised, double-blind trial with a placebo group, 147 patients suffering from knee OA (age span = 64–75 years) were divided into placebo (n 75) and probiotics (n 72) study groups. Vivomix 112 billion, multistrain probiotic was given once a day for 12 weeks. The outcomes of study variables were determined first at baseline and later after 12 weeks of intervention. These were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), knee flexion range of motion (ROM), pain intensity by visual analogue scale, handgrip strength (HGS), gait speed and balance control assessed in standing, semi-tandem and tandem stances. We determined plasma zonulin to determine intestinal leak along with c-reactive protein and 8-isoprostanes levels. A total of 136 OA patients taking placebo (n 71) and probiotics (n 65) were analysed. The probiotics group exhibited a reduction in pain intensity, disease severity and WOMAC scores along with improvement in balance scores, HGS and walking speed (P < 0·05 for all), no change in ROM, resting pain and 8-isoprostanes levels. The correlation analysis revealed a robust association of balance scores with plasma markers of intestinal leakiness and inflammation in probiotics but not in the placebo group. Probiotics reduce postural imbalance in OA patients partly due to a reduction in intestinal leakiness.
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) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".