Probiotic supplementation during pregnancy or infancy for the prevention of allergic rhinitis in infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Early-life gut microbial colonization is crucial for immune system development, but the efficacy of probiotic interventions during pregnancy or infancy in preventing allergic rhinitis (AR) and atopic sensitization (AS) remains unclear. This systematic review synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing probiotics for AR and AS prevention. Methods: Seven English and Chinese databases were systematically searched up to February 13, 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs with clearly defined probiotic interventions and specified AR or AS outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using fixed-effects models. Results: = 0.03). Probiotics were also associated with transient increases in the abundance of targeted gut microbial strains. Conclusion: Probiotics during pregnancy and/or infancy may reduce AS odds in children over 1 year and correlate with age-related changes in gut microbial composition but failed to reduce AR odds at any age.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".