Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39410847›Full record

Trial reportBiomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia2025

Serum neurofilament light chain in response to probiotics in bi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (CleverAge Biota).

Lenka Fialova, Ales Bartos, Marta Kalousova, Libuse Noskova, Miroslava Zelenkova, Michaela Slukova, Tomas Zima

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lenka FialovaInstitute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Ales BartosDepartment of Neurology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Faculty Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czechia.
Marta KalousovaInstitute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Libuse NoskovaInstitute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Miroslava ZelenkovaInstitute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Michaela SlukovaInstitute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Tomas ZimaInstitute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsNeurodegenerative disorders affecting the brain and spinal cord are caused by a large number of factors. More recently, imbalances in gut microbiota are found to be one factor linked directly to neurological dysfunction. Probiotics prevent cognitive decline. For the first time, the effect of probiotics was assessed by monitoring the concentrations of the neurodegeneration biomarker neurofilament light chains (NfL) in a well-defined group of community-dwelling individuals. The aim of this study was to determine whether administration of our new probiotics could reduce NfL concentrations.

methodsThe serum NfL concentrations were measured in total of 190 serum samples of 85 older community-dwelling individuals. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: the PROPLA group and the PLAPRO group. Individuals in the PROPLA group started with a three-month use of probiotics and continued with a three-month use of placebo while the order was reversed in the PLAPRO group. The participants underwent detailed examinations at three time points: at baseline, in three and six months. The serum NfL concentrations were determined using ultrasensitive single-molecule array (SIMOA) assay.

resultsLongitudinal comparisons of NfL concentrations between samplings at different time points in the PROPLA and PLAPRO groups showed no statistically significant differences. Baseline NfL concentrations at the beginning of the study and in the succeeding samplings were not significantly different for the two groups in cross-sectional comparisons.

conclusionsSerum NfL concentrations were not influenced by the three-month use of probiotics.

Indexed as

Neurofilament ProteinsProbioticsAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkersneurofilament protein LNeurofilament Proteinscognitiongastrointestinal microbiomeneurofilament light chainprobioticsserum

Identifiers

PMID39410847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.