MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083466515 · doi:10.33425/2639-9334.1094

Evidence-based use of Probiotics in Children

2025· article· en· W7083466515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Hepatology & Digestive Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactobacillus reuteriProbioticMicrobiomeDysbiosisBifidobacteriumGenetic predispositionGut flora

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Probiotics is exploding for many ailments. Though considered generally harmless, probiotics can transmit Antibiotic-Resistant Genes (ARG), cause infection in immunocompromised hosts, and run the risk of unintended consequences by disrupting the dynamic equilibrium of the gut microbiome. So, evidence-based use of probiotics is recommended. We reviewed the available evidence in probiotics and microbiome research, and present the probable conclusions for the clinician to decide on their use. Conclusions: Structural defect in research: The biological effect of the microbiome is likely to be due to the microbiome in contact with the mucosa. It has been shown that this is different from the intraluminal (fecal) microbiome commonly analyzed in most studies. These studies also do not stratify according to genetic predisposition and native microbiome, both of which can affect colonization of the gut by probiotics. Study Design: There is a lack of case control design, adequate sample size, and selection of specific probiotic species. Diarrhea: LGG and Saccharomyces Boulardi were recommended in acute diarrhea based on low-quality evidence. Studies done in the US and Canada did not support their use. For prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, LGG and Saccharomyces Boulardi were useful, but only S Boulardi reduced C Diff diarrhea. Constipation: No consistent beneficial effect of probiotics reported. Infantile Colic: L. reuteri DSM 17938 reduced colic duration only in breastfed babies. Regurgitation: There is insufficient data to recommend L. reuteri DSM 17938. Functional Abdominal Pain/IBS: The studies' limitations, especially the inadequate sample size, prevent an evidence-based recommendation of probiotics. Necrotizing Enterocolitis: Though Lactobacillus subsp. and Bifidobacterium subsp administration has shown better prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics didn’t support routine use in view of the chance of infection, especially in Very Low Birth Weight (VLBW) babies. Pouchitis: Despite low quality of evidence, AGA has recommended an 8-strain proprietary probiotic mix to prevent and treat pouchitis. Cow’s Milk Protein Allergy and Other Allergies: Though L. rhamnosus GG has shown some promise, high-quality studies are required for a firm recommendation. Probiotics in Infant formula: No overwhelming consistent benefit has been shown. There is a chance of transmitting ARG through the indiscriminate use of probiotics in babies.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology Hepatology & Digestive DisordersSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207