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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
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