Trial reportNutrients2024
Effects of
Trial report in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Understanding of Probiotic Strains and Immune Function: From Gut Microbiota to Systemic Immunity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Reproductive experience influences the effects of Lactocaseibacillus rhamnosus HN001 on gut microbiota and hippocampal plasticity in female rats.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2025Article
- Food, Health, and Environmental Impact of Lactic Acid Bacteria: The Superbacteria for Posterity.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Review
- Precision Psychobiotics for Gut-Brain Axis Health: Advancing the Discovery Pipelines to Deliver Mechanistic Pathways and Proven Health Efficacy.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Review
- Probiotics mitigate stress and inflammation in malnourished adults via gut microbiota modulation: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectives
methodsTo further explore these findings, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with 120 participants aged ≥ 18 years with mild to high stress measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The participants were randomly assigned to receive either HN001 or placebo for 28 days. Psychological assessments, including the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ), were completed at baseline, day 14, and day 28. Secondary outcomes included changes in PSS scores, as well as depression, anxiety, stress, and total score levels measured by the DASS-21 questionnaire.
resultsWhile not statistically significant, participants who received HN001 showed an improvement in OHQ (mean change, 13.3) and PSS total scores (mean change, -8.1) over time compared with the placebo group (mean change, 10.2 and -6.6, respectively). Furthermore, 39% of the participants moved from not happy to happy, compared with only 29% in the placebo group. Post-hoc analysis showed a statistically significant interaction between intervention and study day for OHQ and PSS total scores, with
conclusionsHN001 showed improvements in both happiness and PSS scores. Furthermore, sex subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant differences in both outcomes, emphasizing the need for larger and longer intervention studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.