Prebiotics in Dietary Management of Pediatric Gut Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prebiotics are substrates that host bacteria preferentially use to provide health benefits. Studies on prebiotics in children are scarcer than those on probiotics. Prebiotic-supplemented infant formula has been used in the majority of research, however there have been very few reports of employing add-on prebiotic supplements to prevent or cure gastrointestinal issues in children. The aim of this study was to evaluate effect of Prebiotics in Dietary management of pediatric Gut disease. This was a cross-sectional, case-control study using interviewer-administered questionnaires to survey prebiotic use in children with Gut disease. The Maternity and Children Hospital Makkah - Makkah Health Cluster was the recruitment site for participants. After attending outpatient clinic, 30 patients with gut disease and on prebiotics were questioned, while healthy controls were those who regularly attended clinics with gut disease and not on prebiotics. The findings emphasize the predominance of male participants and younger age groups, with gastrointestinal system issues being the most frequently reported medical condition. There were varied patterns of prebiotic use and participant experiences. Regarding the forms of prebiotics used, the majority of participants (66.7%) opted for syrups or drops. Participants also reported various side effects. The most common side effect was gas (46.7%). Regarding satisfaction with prebiotic use, 63.3% of participants expressed full satisfaction. We concluded that prebiotics are now acknowledged as a promising therapeutic tool for promoting general health and preventing and treating a variety of disease states in children. Indeed, the positive clinical use of prebiotics appears promising given the incredibly low risk of severe side effects, their ease of administration, and their potent ability to affect the makeup and function of the microbiota in the gut and beyond.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".