Efect of 25 weeks probiotic supplementation on immune function of HIV patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Studies with a follow-up of <8 weeks have indicated immune-preserving efects of yogurt probiotic supplementation among HIV patients. To evaluate the impact of 25 weeks use of probiotics, a randomized, double blind, controlled study was undertaken on 65 women who were na\\xc3\\xafve to anti-retroviral treatment. Results: Ten participants were excluded post-randomization due to non-eligibility. Thirty participants were assigned placebo, of whom 25 completed the study versus 19 of 25 completing the study in the probiotics group (p = 0.5). From baseline to 10 weeks follow-up, the CD4 count declined on average 3 CD4 cells/\\xce\\xbcl (95% Confdence Interval: -97; 91) with placebo versus an increase of 50 cells/\\xce\\xbcl (95% CI: -61; 162) with probiotics (p = 0.5). From baseline to 25 weeks, the CD4 count increased with 19 cells/\\xce\\xbcl (95% CI: -90; 129) in the placebo group versus 46 cells/\\xce\\xbcl (95% CI: -100; 192) with probiotics (p = 0.8). No diferences in immune markers, diarrhea incidence or adverse events were observed. Discussion: Lactobacillus GR-1 a nd RC-14 may be safely consumed at 2\\xc3\\x97109 CFU/day by moderately immune compromised HIV patients but this did not universally preserve immune-function. Patients and Methods: Women were randomized to receive oral capsules containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14 (2\\xc3\\x97109 colony forming units) or placebo twice daily for 25 weeks. The CD4 count and immune markers (IgG, IgE, IFN\\xce\\xb3 and IL-10) were measured at baseline and during follow-up, the occurrence of diarrhea was reported daily.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".