MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405317762 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2024.2436139

Natural anti-adhesive components against pathogenic bacterial adhesion and infection in gastrointestinal tract: case studies of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> , <i>Salmonella enterica</i> , <i>Clostridium difficile</i> , and diarrheagenic <i>Escherichia coli</i>

2024· review· en· W4405317762 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyu Bao, Jianping Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiologySalmonella entericaSalmonellaClostridium difficilePathogenic bacteriaGastrointestinal tractAntimicrobialBiologyBiofilmBacteriaAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a global public health concern. Recognizing the critical role of bacterial adhesion in pathogenesis of infection, anti-adhesive therapy emerges as a promising approach to impede initial bacterial attachment, thus preventing pathogenic colonization and infection. Natural anti-adhesive agents derived from food sources are generally safe and have the potential to inhibit the emergence of resistant bacteria. This comprehensive review explored diverse natural dietary components exhibiting anti-adhesive activities against several model enteric pathogens, including Helicobacter pylori, Salmonella enterica, Clostridium difficile, and three key diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (i.e., enterotoxigenic E. coli, enteropathogenic E. coli, and enterohemorrhagic E. coli). Investigating various anti-adhesive products will advance our understanding of current research of the field and inspire further development of these agents as potential nutraceuticals or adjuvants to improve the efficacy of conventional antibiotics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207