10⁹ into 109. The quotes are reproduced exactly as the extraction left them and have NOT been repaired — the meaning of such a code point belongs to the one PDF it came from, and guessing it would produce a clean, confident, unverifiable quote.standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 3 of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the word 'prebiotic' - what it has meant since 1995, what it should mean now, and which substances fall inside and outside the category Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether the 1995 definition still fits the evidence, and specifically whether selectivity, the colon and the food category should remain part of what the term requires Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a consensus definition - a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit - which restores the selectivity requirement a 2010 definition had removed, drops the restriction to the gut and to food, and names what is excluded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a scientific category being fixed by deliberation rather than discovered - twelve named experts, one day, a printed history of the previous definitions and a figure with a NOT PREBIOTIC column Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | the panel prints the 1995 wording, the three criteria it implied, the 2010 revision that removed selective fermentation and confined prebiotics to the gut, and then its own. A reader can see which requirement was dropped and put back, which is the record most redefinitions do not leave Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a definition with a history attached | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | antibiotics, minerals, vitamins and bacteriophages are named as NOT prebiotics even though they alter the microbiota. Defining by exclusion tests the criterion where it is hardest - on things that produce the same observable effect by a different mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: a boundary drawn from outside | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | butyrate generated by pathogens with a bad outcome for the host is not a prebiotic effect. So membership depends jointly on the substrate, on which organisms used it and on what happened to the host - and none of that is measurable from the substance alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the panel requires assessment of the full microbial diversity in vivo and calls inference from pure or co-culture inadequate. Widening a category while raising its evidence bar is what stops a broader definition from admitting more claims Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | ISAPP raises funds through an Industry Advisory Committee, and the statement records that no input into this consensus process came from its members. The disclosure is placed in the methods, next to the procedure it could have influenced Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A DEFINITION FAILED BY ITS EXTENSION AND THE PAPER SAYS SO: the 2008 FAO/UN wording dropped selective fermentation, and `IN DOING SO THE DEFINITION WAS CRITICIZED FOR NOT EXCLUDING ANTIBIOTICS`. An intergovernmental panel widened a category until it admitted the one class of substance the category exists to be distinguished from - and the corpus already carries `antibiotics` on this record as the named excluded case. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE REPAIR WAS A NEW NAME, NOT AN AMENDMENT: two years after the 2008 wording failed, `Gibson et al.20 ... defined the narrower category of ‘dietary prebiotics’ as “a selectively fermented ingredient”`. Rather than revise the term that had gone wrong, the field minted a second term carrying the criterion the first had lost - and then in 2015 the unqualified term moved AGAIN, the other way. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE PANEL RECORDS WHY IT PICKED ONE WORD: `Quotation withheld`. A consensus body justifying a single lexical choice in print, in a box headed as justification for the new definition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE STATED TRIGGER FOR A CONSENSUS IS THE PLURALITY OF DEFINITIONS ITSELF: `Given the proposed definitions already described, as well as others, the need for A CONSENSUS DEFINITION WAS EVIDENT`. The paper treats the count of competing definitions as sufficient grounds to convene a panel - and says `as well as others`, so the five it prints are not the whole set. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE STATED TRIGGER FOR A CONSENSUS IS THE PLURALITY OF DEFINITIONS ITSELF: `Given the proposed definitions already described, as well as others, the need for A CONSENSUS DEFINITION WAS EVIDENT`. The paper treats the count of competing definitions as sufficient grounds to convene a panel - and says `as well as others`, so the five it prints are not the whole set. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | currently established prebiotics are carbohydrate-based, and non-carbohydrate candidates only might fit the updated definition pending convincing evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the health benefit must be documented for a substance to be considered a prebiotic, so the category cannot be assigned from chemistry alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | inference about prebiotic effects from pure or co-culture experiments is inadequate; conclusions require the full microbiota in vivo Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | a 2010 definition had removed the selective-fermentation requirement and confined prebiotics to the gut, so the term has carried incompatible meanings in the literature the panel is summarising Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the definition is produced by consensus among a panel rather than by a test, so its authority rests on the procedure and the panel composition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the consensus-panel procedure itself, carried from clinical guideline development into terminology - a category settled by documented deliberation rather than by experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the statement records that ISAPP raises funds through an Industry Advisory Committee and that no input into this consensus panel came from its members Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: industry influence on a definition that governs product marketing and regulatory oversight - the one place a funded body's category would be worth buying · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the previous definitions reproduced verbatim alongside the new one, with the requirement each version added or removed named Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a silent redefinition - a reader can see that selectivity was removed in 2010 and restored here, rather than having to reconstruct it · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | substances that alter the microbiota by other mechanisms - antibiotics, minerals, vitamins, bacteriophages - tested against the criterion and named as excluded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a criterion that admits anything with an effect on the microbiota, which is what a definition without selective utilization would do · outcome: held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the requirement that prebiotic activity be assessed across the full microbial diversity in vivo rather than by abundance of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a positive result manufactured by measuring only the two genera the substrate was already known to feed · outcome: held | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the panel procedure - discussion per issue until consensus, sections written by individual panellists, compiled, then edited and agreed by all members and the board Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a consensus document that records the view of a single panellist - every section was written individually, then compiled, edited and agreed by all members · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | prebiotic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prebiotic | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | probiotics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: probiotics | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | dietary fibres Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dietary fibres | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | selective utilization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selective utilization | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | antibiotics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: antibiotics | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | butyrate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: butyrate | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: consensus | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Industry Advisory Committee Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Industry Advisory Committee | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | full microbial diversity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: full microbial diversity | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bifido bacteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bifido bacteria | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | prebiotic - AS DEFINED IN 1995: a non-digestible FOOD ingredient that selectively stimulates one or a limited number of bacteria ALREADY RESIDENT IN THE COLON Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | prebiotic - AS DEFINED IN 2015 by Bindels et al.: limited to the gut microbiota, excluding extraintestinal sites such as vagina and skin, and with the requirement for selective fermentation REMOVED - the definition this panel was convened to replace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | prebiotic - AS DEFINED IN 2017: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit - selectivity restored, no food requirement, no site requirement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | prebiotic - BY WHAT IT EXCLUDES: not antibiotics, minerals, vitamins or bacteriophages, which alter the microbiota without being growth substrates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | a prebiotic effect - AS A PROPERTY OF THE SUBSTANCE: what the category name suggests, and what the panel rejects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | a prebiotic effect - AS A PROPERTY OF THE WHOLE EVENT: if pathogens generate the butyrate and the host is harmed, the same molecule is not a prebiotic effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | evidence of prebiotic activity - AS PRACTISED: increased abundance of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | evidence of prebiotic activity - AS REQUIRED HERE: an assessment of the full microbial diversity in vivo, with pure and co-culture inference called inadequate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | prebiotic - AS DEFINED IN 2004: `selectively fermented ingredients that allow specific changes ... in the gastrointestinal microflora that confers benefits upon host well-being and health`, carrying THREE explicit criteria - resist host digestion, be fermented by intestinal microorganisms, and selectively stimulate health-associated intestinal bacteria. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | prebiotic - AS DEFINED IN 2008 BY AN FAO/UN TECHNICAL MEETING: `a non-viable food component that confers a health benefit on the host associated with modulation of the microbiota`. SELECTIVE FERMENTATION WAS REMOVED, AND THE DEFINITION WAS THEN CRITICISED FOR NOT EXCLUDING ANTIBIOTICS - a definition whose extension was wrong in a way anyone could check. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | dietary prebiotics - A NARROWER SIBLING TERM COINED IN 2010 TO REPAIR THE 2008 DEFINITION: `a selectively fermented ingredient that results in specific changes in the composition and/or activity of the gastrointestinal microbiota`. The repair was made by NAMING A NEW TERM rather than by amending the old one, and it RESTORED the criterion 2008 had dropped. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the 2010 definition, which confined prebiotics to the gut and removed the requirement for selective fermentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the 1995 definition, by dropping the food, colon and non-digestibility restrictions while keeping selectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the field's practice of evidencing prebiotic activity by increased abundance of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → probiotics and dietary fibres, as neighbouring categories the term must not absorb Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prebiotic —distinct-from→ probiotics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the thing administered is alive or is food for something alive · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation): whether the thing administered is alive or is food for something alive · the relation stated: probiotics are live microorganisms; prebiotics are non-viable substrates that feed them, including administered probiotic strains also in: prebiotic · probiotics | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prebiotic —distinct-from→ dietary fibres Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the substrate is used selectively or by the whole community · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation): whether the substrate is used selectively or by the whole community · the relation stated: most dietary fibres encourage a wide variety of gut microorganisms; a prebiotic must not be broadly metabolized but bias metabolism towards health-promoting members also in: prebiotic · dietary fibres | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | full microbial diversity —distinct-from→ bifido bacteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the evidence covers the community or two convenient genera · the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation): whether the evidence covers the community or two convenient genera · the relation stated: a prebiotic claim must rest on an assessment of the whole community, not on increased abundance of two genera
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but prebiotic effects must be judged on full diversity 'not simply' bifidobacteria; distinct-from is loose. also in: full microbial diversity · bifido bacteria | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the panel redefined a prebiotic as a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a 2010 definition had removed the requirement for selective fermentation and confined prebiotics to the gut; this panel restores selectivity and removes the site restriction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | antibiotics, minerals, vitamins and bacteriophages are named as not prebiotics even though their intake might alter the microbiota Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | butyrate generated by pathogenic microorganisms with a negative consequence for the host cannot be termed a prebiotic effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | prebiotic activity must be assessed across the full microbial diversity in vivo, not by increased abundance of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no input into the consensus panel process was provided by members of the ISAPP Industry Advisory Committee Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the stated goal is to engender appropriate use of the term by stakeholders in research reports, product marketing and regulatory oversight Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 2017 ISAPP: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit - expanded to non-carbohydrates, to sites beyond the gut and to categories beyond food, with the selectivity requirement retained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prebiotic | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1995: a non-digestible food ingredient that beneficially affects the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacteria already resident in the colon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prebiotic | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | selective utilization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: selective utilization | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.