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.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| 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— “Ultimately, the goal of this Consensus Statement is to engender appropriate use of the term ‘prebiotic’ by relevant stakeholders so that consistency and clarity can be achieved in research reports, product marketing and regulatory oversight of the category.” | |
| claim-type | method— “To prepare, panellists developed a discussion outline and target questions. Several delivered brief presentations that addressed background and core issues. Discussion ensued for each issue until consensus was achieved. After the meeting, individual panellists wrote sections of the summary, which were compiled by G.R.G., M.E.S and G.R. into a… | |
| method — evidence | — “To prepare, panellists developed a discussion outline and target questions. Several delivered brief presentations that addressed background and core issues. Discussion ensued for each issue until consensus was achieved. After the meeting, individual panellists wrote sections of the summary, which were compiled by G.R.G., M.E.S and G.R. into a… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Consistent with the original embodiment of prebiotics, but aware of the latest scientific and clinical developments, the panel updated the definition of a prebiotic: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit. This definition expands the concept of prebiotics to possibly include… | |
| research question — evidence | — “Consistent with the original embodiment of prebiotics, but aware of the latest scientific and clinical developments, the panel updated the definition of a prebiotic: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit. This definition expands the concept of prebiotics to possibly include… | |
| contribution — evidence | — “Consistent with the original embodiment of prebiotics, but aware of the latest scientific and clinical developments, the panel updated the definition of a prebiotic: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit. This definition expands the concept of prebiotics to possibly include… | |
| transfer | from clinical guideline development: the consensus-panel procedure itself, carried from clinical guideline development into terminology - a category settled by documented deliberation rather than by experiment— “To prepare, panellists developed a discussion outline and target questions. Several delivered brief presentations that addressed background and core issues. Discussion ensued for each issue until consensus was achieved. After the meeting, individual panellists wrote sections of the summary, which were compiled by G.R.G., M.E.S and G.R. into a… | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | a definition with a history attached 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— “This definition limited pre biotics to interactions with the gut microbiota (excluding extraintestinal sites such as vagina and skin) and removed the requirement for selective fermentation. Selectivity with respect to microbial fermentation is viewed by this panel as key to the prebiotic concept.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | a boundary drawn from outside 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— “Substrates that affect composition of the microbiota through mechanisms not involving selective utilization by host microorganisms are not prebiotics. These sub strates would include antibiotics, minerals, vitamins and bacteriophages, which are not growth substrates, even though their intake might alter microbiota and metabolic… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | the category is a property of the event, not the substance 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— “However, if pathogenic microorganisms are involved in butyrate generation and a negative consequence occurs for the host, then it cannot be termed a prebiotic. This distinction makes it important to determine both function and composition of the gut microbiota involved.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | the evidence standard raised at the same time as the definition 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— “Making inferences on prebiotic effects from pure or coculture experiments is inadequate. Similarly, any conclusion regarding prebiotic activity must be based on an assessment of the full microbial diversity, not simply increased abundance of gut bifido bacteria or lacto bacilli, for example.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | the conflict declared where it would operate 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— “Through its Industry Advisory Committee, ISAPP incorporates indus try scien tists in its activities and raises funds to advance its mission. However, no input into this consensus panel process was provided by members of the Industry Advisory Committee.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | 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.— “The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) organized a Technical Meeting to update the defin ition of prebiotics in 2008. This panel proposed that prebiotics be redefined as “a nonviable food component that confers a health benefit on the host associated with modulation of the microbiota” (REF. 19). Here… | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | 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.— “Gibson et al.20, 2 years later, defined the narrower category of ‘dietary prebiotics’ as “a selectively fermented ingredient that results in specific changes in the compo sition and/or activity of the gastrointestinal microbiota, thus conferring benefit(s) upon host health” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | AND THE PANEL RECORDS WHY IT PICKED ONE WORD: `The term ‘substrate’ was chosen for its meaning of a substance on or from which an organism obtains its nourishment`. A consensus body justifying a single lexical choice in print, in a box headed as justification for the new definition.— “The term ‘substrate’ was chosen for its meaning of a substance on or from which an organism obtains its nourishment” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | 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.— “Given the proposed definitions already described, as well as others, the need for a consensus definition was evi dent23. This need was amplified by views that the pre biotic concept required clarification on specificity, mech anisms of effect, health attributes and relevance” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | 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.— “Given the proposed definitions already described, as well as others, the need for a consensus definition was evi dent23. This need was amplified by views that the pre biotic concept required clarification on specificity, mech anisms of effect, health attributes” | mechanisms[9] |
| critiques | the 2010 definition, which confined prebiotics to the gut and removed the requirement for selective fermentation— “This definition limited pre biotics to interactions with the gut microbiota (excluding extraintestinal sites such as vagina and skin) and removed the requirement for selective fermentation. Selectivity with respect to microbial fermentation is viewed by this panel as key to the prebiotic concept.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | the 1995 definition, by dropping the food, colon and non-digestibility restrictions while keeping selectivity— “Consistent with the original embodiment of prebiotics, but aware of the latest scientific and clinical developments, the panel updated the definition of a prebiotic: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit. This definition expands the concept of prebiotics to possibly include… | claim_relations[1] |
| critiques | the field's practice of evidencing prebiotic activity by increased abundance of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli— “Making inferences on prebiotic effects from pure or coculture experiments is inadequate. Similarly, any conclusion regarding prebiotic activity must be based on an assessment of the full microbial diversity, not simply increased abundance of gut bifido bacteria or lacto bacilli, for example.” | claim_relations[2] |
| distinguishes-from | probiotics and dietary fibres, as neighbouring categories the term must not absorb— “Whereas probiotics use live microorganisms, prebiotics are nonviable substrates that serve as nutrients for beneficial microorganisms harboured by the host, including administered pro biotic strains and indigenous (resident) microorganisms. Thus, prebiotics differ from most dietary fibres such as pectins, cellulose and xylans, which… | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | 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— “Although dietary oligosaccharides had long been used to impart health benefits, principally in Asia, the prebiotic concept was first defined in 1995 as 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… | senses[0] |
| sense | 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— “This definition limited pre biotics to interactions with the gut microbiota (excluding extraintestinal sites such as vagina and skin) and removed the requirement for selective fermentation. Selectivity with respect to microbial fermentation is viewed by this panel as key to the prebiotic concept.” | senses[1] |
| sense | 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— “now proposes the following definition of a pre biotic: a substrate that is selectively utilized by host micro organisms conferring a health benefit (BOX 1). See BOX 2 for additional rationale used to adopt this new definition.” | senses[2] |
| sense | prebiotic - BY WHAT IT EXCLUDES: not antibiotics, minerals, vitamins or bacteriophages, which alter the microbiota without being growth substrates— “Substrates that affect composition of the microbiota through mechanisms not involving selective utilization by host microorganisms are not prebiotics. These sub strates would include antibiotics, minerals, vitamins and bacteriophages, which are not growth substrates, even though their intake might alter microbiota and metabolic… | senses[3] |
| sense | a prebiotic effect - AS A PROPERTY OF THE SUBSTANCE: what the category name suggests, and what the panel rejects— “However, if pathogenic microorganisms are involved in butyrate generation and a negative consequence occurs for the host, then it cannot be termed a prebiotic. This distinction makes it important to determine both function and composition of the gut microbiota involved.” | senses[4] |
| sense | 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— “However, if pathogenic microorganisms are involved in butyrate generation and a negative consequence occurs for the host, then it cannot be termed a prebiotic. This distinction makes it important to determine both function and composition of the gut microbiota involved.” | senses[5] |
| sense | evidence of prebiotic activity - AS PRACTISED: increased abundance of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli— “Making inferences on prebiotic effects from pure or coculture experiments is inadequate. Similarly, any conclusion regarding prebiotic activity must be based on an assessment of the full microbial diversity, not simply increased abundance of gut bifido bacteria or lacto bacilli, for example.” | senses[6] |
| sense | evidence of prebiotic activity - AS REQUIRED HERE: an assessment of the full microbial diversity in vivo, with pure and co-culture inference called inadequate— “Making inferences on prebiotic effects from pure or coculture experiments is… | senses[7] |
| sense | 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. | senses[8] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[9] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[10] |
| control | the statement records that ISAPP raises funds through an Industry Advisory Committee and that no input into this consensus panel came from its members — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out industry influence on a definition that governs product marketing and regulatory oversight - the one place a funded body's category would be worth buying Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| control | the previous definitions reproduced verbatim alongside the new one, with the requirement each version added or removed named — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a silent redefinition - a reader can see that selectivity was removed in 2010 and restored here, rather than having to reconstruct it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| control | substances that alter the microbiota by other mechanisms - antibiotics, minerals, vitamins, bacteriophages - tested against the criterion and named as excluded — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a criterion that admits anything with an effect on the microbiota, which is what a definition without selective utilization would do Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| control | the requirement that prebiotic activity be assessed across the full microbial diversity in vivo rather than by abundance of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a positive result manufactured by measuring only the two genera the substrate was already known to feed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[3] |
| control | the panel procedure - discussion per issue until consensus, sections written by individual panellists, compiled, then edited and agreed by all members and the board — held — rules out a consensus document that records the view of a single panellist - every section was written individually, then compiled, edited and agreed by all members Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[4] |
| weight | the 2010 definition, which confined prebiotics to the gut and removed the requirement for selective fermentation — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | the 1995 definition, by dropping the food, colon and non-digestibility restrictions while keeping selectivity — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | the field's practice of evidencing prebiotic activity by increased abundance of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[2] |
| weight | probiotics and dietary fibres, as neighbouring categories the term must not absorb — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | prebiotic —distinct-from→ probiotics — whether the thing administered is alive or is food for something alive | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | prebiotic —distinct-from→ probiotics — probiotics are live microorganisms; prebiotics are non-viable substrates that feed them, including administered probiotic strains Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | prebiotic —distinct-from→ probiotics — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | prebiotic —distinct-from→ dietary fibres — whether the substrate is used selectively or by the whole community | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | prebiotic —distinct-from→ dietary fibres — most dietary fibres encourage a wide variety of gut microorganisms; a prebiotic must not be broadly metabolized but bias metabolism towards health-promoting members Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | prebiotic —distinct-from→ dietary fibres — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | full microbial diversity —distinct-from→ bifido bacteria — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | full microbial diversity —distinct-from→ bifido bacteria — whether the evidence covers the community or two convenient genera | concept_edges[4] |
| relation | full microbial diversity —distinct-from→ bifido bacteria — a prebiotic claim must rest on an assessment of the whole community, not on increased abundance of two genera Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| weight | full microbial diversity —distinct-from→ bifido bacteria — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[3] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[4] |
| limitation | currently established prebiotics are carbohydrate-based, and non-carbohydrate candidates only might fit the updated definition pending convincing evidence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | inference about prebiotic effects from pure or co-culture experiments is inadequate; conclusions require the full microbiota in vivo Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| variable | selective utilization Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| definition | prebiotic Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | prebiotic Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| concept | prebiotic — not defined in this paper's own words; a substrate selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit - a term redefined four times in twenty-two years, with each version naming what it changed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | probiotics — not defined in this paper's own words; live microorganisms - the neighbouring category, and the one the prebiotic concept was built to complement rather than overlap Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | dietary fibres — not defined in this paper's own words; pectins, cellulose and xylans - fermentable but broadly so, which is the property that keeps most of them out of the prebiotic category Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | selective utilization — not defined in this paper's own words; the criterion that draws the boundary - restored in 2017 after a 2010 definition removed it, and the single test the panel treats as key Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | antibiotics — not defined in this paper's own words; named as NOT a prebiotic despite altering the microbiota, because the mechanism is not selective utilization - the definition's excluded case Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | butyrate — not defined in this paper's own words; the metabolite whose production does or does not count as a prebiotic effect depending on which organisms made it and what followed for the host Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | consensus — not defined in this paper's own words; the procedure that produced the definition - discussion per issue until agreement, then sections written, compiled, edited and approved by all panellists and the board Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | Industry Advisory Committee — not defined in this paper's own words; the industry arm of ISAPP, which funds the organisation and is stated to have given no input into this panel - a conflict declared at the point it would matter Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | full microbial diversity — not defined in this paper's own words; the assessment the panel requires for any prebiotic claim, against the field's habit of reporting a rise in two genera Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | bifido bacteria — not defined in this paper's own words; with lactobacilli, the two genera whose increased abundance the field has used as the readout - explicitly declared insufficient here Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[9] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824