MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408196255 · doi:10.25236/ajmhs.2025.060106

Probiotics Impact on Cognitive Ability and Emotions in Adolescents: A Brain-Gut Axis Study

2025· article· en· W4408196255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Journal of Medicine & Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking UniversityBeijing Institute of Technology
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyGut–brain axisDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicineGut flora

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gut-Brain Axis (GBA) is a bidirectional communication system between the central nervous system (CNS) and the enteric nervous system (ENS), with gut microbiota playing a crucial role in regulating its functions. This study investigates probiotics’ effects on adolescents’ cognition, memory, and emotions. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial involved 15 healthy adolescents aged 15–18, divided into a treatment group receiving probiotics and a control group given a placebo. Assessments included baseline and post-intervention evaluations after a four-week period using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results showed significant cognitive improvement and increased positive emotions in the treatment group, while the control group exhibited no notable changes. These findings suggest probiotics positively influence cognitive function and emotional state by modulating gut microbiota. Despite the small sample size, this study provides preliminary evidence for probiotics’ therapeutic potential in adolescents. Larger, longer-term studies are needed to confirm these results.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Journal of Medicine & Health SciencesSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207