MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413700166 · doi:10.3390/nu17172751

Beyond Analgesia: Psychobiotics as an Adjunctive Approach to Pain Management in Gastrointestinal Oncology—A Post Hoc Analysis from the ProDeCa Study

2025· article· en· W4413700166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgios Tzikos, Alexandra-Eleftheria Menni, Helen Theodorou, Eleni Chamalidou, Ioannis M. Theodorou, George Stavrou, Anne Shrewsbury, Aikaterini Amaniti, Anastasia Konsta, Joulia K. Tsetis, Vasileios Grosomanidis, Katerina Kotzampassi

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-hoc analysisMedicinePost hocAdjunctive treatmentPain managementOncologyInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pain is a multifaceted and debilitating symptom in patients with gastrointestinal cancer, especially those undergoing surgical resection followed by chemotherapy. The interplay between inflammatory, neuropathic, and psychosocial components often renders conventional analgesia insufficient. Psychobiotics—probiotic strains with neuroactive properties—have recently emerged as potential modulators of pain perception through neuroimmune and gut–brain axis pathways. Methods: This post hoc analysis is based on the ProDeCa randomized, placebo-controlled trial, which originally aimed to assess the psychotropic effects of a four-strain psychobiotic formulation in postoperative gastrointestinal cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. In the current analysis, we evaluated changes in pain perception among non-depressed and depressed participants, who received either psychobiotics or placebo, along with standard analgesic regimes. Pain was assessed at baseline, after a month of treatment, and at follow-up, 2 months thereafter, using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), capturing both sensory and affective components, as well as with the Present Pain Intensity and the VAS scores. Results: Psychobiotic-treated participants—particularly the non-depressed ones—exhibited a significant reduction in both quantitative and qualitative pain indices over time compared with placebo-treated ones. Improvements were noted in total pain rating index scores, sensory and affective subscales, and present pain intensity. These effects were sustained up to 2 months after intervention. In contrast, placebo groups demonstrated worsening in pain scores, probably influenced by ongoing chemotherapy and disease progression. The analgesic effect was less pronounced but still observable in the subgroup with symptoms of depression. Conclusions: Adjunctive psychobiotic therapy appears to beneficially modulate pain perception in gastrointestinal oncology patients receiving chemotherapy, with the most pronounced effects being in non-depressed individuals. These findings suggest psychobiotics as a promising non-opioid add-on for comprehensive cancer pain management and support further investigation in larger pain-targeted trials.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207