MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W60937635 · doi:10.21775/cimb.010.037

Immunomodulatory Effects of Probiotics in the Intestinal Tract

2008· review· en· W60937635 on OpenAlexafffund
Véronique Delcenserie, Dominic Martel, M. Lamoureux, J. Amiot, Yvan Boutin, Denis Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Molecular Biology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsProbioticImmune systemMucosal immunityImmunityBiologyMicrobiologyGastrointestinal tractStrain (injury)In vitroImmunologyStimulationMode of actionMedicineBacteriaNeuroscienceAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intestinal microbiota is the largest source of microbial stimulation that exerts both harmful and beneficial effects on human health. The interaction between probiotic and enterocytes is the initiating event in immunomodulation and merits particular attention. The effects of probiotic is strain dependent and for each new probiotic strain, profiles of cytokines secreted by lymphocytes, enterocytes or dendritic cells that come in contact with the strain should be systematically established. To evaluate the effects of probiotics on the immune system, models that mimic the mucosa, and thus the physiological reality, should be preferred whenever it is possible. Then, the in vitro observed effects should be backed up by properly conducted randomized double bind clinical studies. More detailed studies are needed to determine the precise action mode of probiotics on both mucosal and systemic immunity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations404
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Issues in Molecular BiologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207