Efficacy of Probiotic Supplementation with <i>Lactiplantibacillus plantarum</i> Strains on Gastrointestinal Tract Function – A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction in older adults may be associated with gut microbiota activity or composition changes. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains KABP031 and KABP032 have been shown to beneficially influence the frequency of bowel movements (BMs) and nutritional status in older adults. This study investigated the efficacy of this probiotic blend on defecation/stool consistency, GI symptoms, nutrient uptake, and mental well-being in older adults with occasional constipation. Subjects 50–85 years of age with infrequent BMs, straining during defecation and hard stool consistency, were randomized to either the Probiotic or Placebo group for 84 days. Changes in bowel function, GI symptoms, and stress were assessed by the daily bowel habits diary, Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale (GSRS) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), respectively. Improvements in bowel movement frequency (p = 0.027, 95% CI: 0.22–2.39) and stool consistency (p = 0.002; 95% CI: 0.32–1.30) with the Probiotic were significantly greater compared to Placebo after 42 days. There was also significant decrease in the percentage of weekly BMs with a Bristol Stool Scale score of ≤2 with Probiotic vs. Placebo (-28.6% vs. −3.2%, p < 0.001). A significantly lower proportion of participants in the Probiotic group reported moderate stress following 84 days of supplementation compared to the Placebo group (9.4% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.013). Further, within-group significant improvements in stool consistency and BM frequency from baseline at days 42 and 84 were observed with the Probiotic (p < 0.001), but not the Placebo. The findings suggest the probiotic blend alleviated constipation symptoms and improved the mental well-being in older adults with occasional constipation.Clinical trial registry number and website NCT04147923; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04147923
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".