Lactobacillus salivarius
Lactobacillus salivarius
Also known as: L. salivarius, Lactobacillus salivarius LS01
This ingredient is classified as unclassified risk.
Safety Profile
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Interactions
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Evidence and Scientific Findings
Ingredient Overview
Lactobacillus salivarius is a probiotic colonising the small intestine and oral cavity. Used for immune support, eczema, and oral health. Generally very safe. Standard probiotic safety caveats apply for severely immunocompromised patients.
Biological and Chemical Classification
- Scientific Name
- Lactobacillus salivarius
Mechanism of Action
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Pharmacokinetics
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
Recommended Dosage
Information not yet available for this ingredient profile.
SETI — Scientific Evidence Transparency Index
Executive Summary — Ingredient Assessment
- 10 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or RCT)
- Main clinical benefit observed: Probiotics
- Evidence consistency: High consistency across studies (100%)
- No significant safety signals identified in the reviewed literature.
The available scientific evidence for Lactobacillus salivarius indicates notable safety signals that warrant caution. Use should be considered carefully and monitored, particularly in sensitive populations or alongside other medications.
Total SETI Score
High risk| Evidence quality | 10/40 |
| Evidence consistency | 20/20 |
| Safety signals | 0/20 |
| Study recency | 10/10 |
| Evidence transparency | 10/10 |
Evidence Summary
- 10 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or systematic review)
- 0 studies identified benefits or no safety concern (GREEN)
- 10 studies reported limited or advisory safety evidence (YELLOW)
Evidence Policy
Only peer-reviewed scientific literature indexed in PubMed or comparable databases is included in this evaluation. Commercial websites, blogs, and marketing materials are excluded. All references include direct traceable links to source documents.
Last updated: 06 აპრ 2026, 12:11
Evidence Distribution
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEffects of a Lactobacillus salivarius probiotic short-term intervention on S.u00a0mutans, Lactobacillus spp. and C. albicans - au00a0randomized pilot study with pre-school children. ↗Staszczyk M et al.. Effects of a Lactobacillus salivarius probiotic short-term intervention on S.u00a0mutans, Lactobacillus spp. and C. albicans - au00a0randomized pilot study with pre-school children.. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2026. PMID:41906504.PMID 41906504 ↗Journal Ann Agric Environ MedYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41906504/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWLactobacillus salivarius D5 improves growth performance and immune function in broilers by reducing Escherichia coli abundance and regulating the gut microbiota. ↗You Y et al.. Lactobacillus salivarius D5 improves growth performance and immune function in broilers by reducing Escherichia coli abundance and regulating the gut microbiota.. Poult Sci. 2026. PMID:41905065.PMID 41905065 ↗Journal Poult SciYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41905065/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEffects of N-Acetylneuraminic Acid on Intestinal Microbial Composition and Metabolic Activity in a Piglet Model. ↗Zhang J et al.. Effects of N-Acetylneuraminic Acid on Intestinal Microbial Composition and Metabolic Activity in a Piglet Model.. Vet Sci. 2026. PMID:41893712.PMID 41893712 ↗Journal Vet SciYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41893712/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWSupragingival dental biofilm microbiomes of tobacco heating system smokers, cigarette smokers and non-smokers. ↗Bou017eac E et al.. Supragingival dental biofilm microbiomes of tobacco heating system smokers, cigarette smokers and non-smokers.. Clin Oral Investig. 2026. PMID:41870676.PMID 41870676 ↗Journal Clin Oral InvestigYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41870676/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWRed panda intestinal organoids for the functional analysis of Lactobacillus salivarius. ↗Guo Q et al.. Red panda intestinal organoids for the functional analysis of Lactobacillus salivarius.. iScience. 2026. PMID:41852748.PMID 41852748 ↗Journal iScienceYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41852748/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEarly modulatory effects of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Lactobacillus salivarius on oncogenic processes in dysplastic oral keratinocytes. ↗Samia U et al.. Early modulatory effects of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Lactobacillus salivarius on oncogenic processes in dysplastic oral keratinocytes.. Mol Biol Rep. 2026. PMID:41838299.PMID 41838299 ↗Journal Mol Biol RepYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41838299/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEffects of dietary Chinese yam- Rehmannia glutinosa 'medicine pair' on growth performance, body size trait, slaughtering performance, antioxidant capacity, and cecum microbiota… ↗Zhang J et al.. Effects of dietary Chinese yam- Rehmannia glutinosa 'medicine pair' on growth performance, body size trait, slaughtering performance, antioxidant capacity, and cecum microbiota of broilers.. Front Nutr. 2026. PMID:41821862.PMID 41821862 ↗Journal Front NutrYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41821862/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWPostbiotic approach to antibiotic resistance: antibacterial and antibiofilm potential of Lactobacillus salivarius supernatant. ↗Akgol E et al.. Postbiotic approach to antibiotic resistance: antibacterial and antibiofilm potential of Lactobacillus salivarius supernatant.. Int Microbiol. 2026. PMID:41806163.PMID 41806163 ↗Journal Int MicrobiolYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41806163/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWEffects of selection on production parameters and intestinal microbiota in heritage and modern broiler chickens. ↗Kpodo KR et al.. Effects of selection on production parameters and intestinal microbiota in heritage and modern broiler chickens.. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2026. PMID:41792823.PMID 41792823 ↗Journal J Anim Sci BiotechnolYear 2026Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41792823/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWAssociation between the Proportions of Streptococcus mutans, Candida albicans, and Lactobacillus salivarius in Dental Plaques and Dentures. ↗Ahmed SM et al.. Association between the Proportions of Streptococcus mutans, Candida albicans, and Lactobacillus salivarius in Dental Plaques and Dentures.. Indian J Dent Res. 2025. PMID:41870591.PMID 41870591 ↗Journal Indian J Dent ResYear 2025Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41870591/
Score Transparency
0 of 10 approved references (score saturates at 10). More peer-reviewed studies = stronger evidence base.
Method: Q = number of approved references ÷ 10 (capped at 1.0)
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies
Method: L = mean study-level weight across approved references. Level 1 (meta-analysis / systematic review) = 1.0; Level 2 (RCT) = 0.8; Level 3 (cohort/case-control) = 0.6; Level 4 (case report) = 0.4; Level 5 (animal / in-vitro) = 0.2.
Mixed or neutral — roughly equal benefit and risk signals
Method: D = (sum of risk-scored references − sum of benefit-scored references) ÷ total evidence score, then scaled from [−1, 1] to [0, 1]. 0.0 = pure benefit; 0.5 = neutral; 1.0 = pure risk.
One or more monitoring-level safety signals active
Method: S = 0.5 (neutral baseline) + sum of active signal severity deltas ÷ 10. Severity deltas: Critical = +2.0, High = +1.5, Moderate = +1.0, Low = +0.5. Capped at 1.0.
Final GIRI Score for Lactobacillus salivarius. Risk level thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
Full methodology & data sources
The GIRI Score is computed entirely from structured data — no editorial scoring or subjective weighting is applied at any step.
- References: Only approved references are counted. Each reference is assigned an evidence level (L1–L5) and a direction (risk / neutral / benefit) by the reference manager or AI classifier.
- Safety Signals: Sourced from regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others) and pharmacovigilance databases. Only active signals count toward the score.
- Formula version: GIRI Score v3.7.0 — Q × L × D × S × 10.
- Limitations: The score reflects published evidence and recorded signals as of the last update date. It is not a clinical risk assessment and should not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
Risk Level Classification
Based on available regulatory signals and scientific evidence, this ingredient presents a low safety concern under normal conditions of use.
0–3.0
3.0–5.5
5.5–7.5
7.5–10
The score pin shows exactly where this ingredient falls on the fixed risk scale.
What drove the Low classification for Lactobacillus salivarius
A score of 1.5 places this ingredient in the Low band. Thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
0 approved references.
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies (Level 4–5).
Neutral or mixed — benefit and risk signals roughly balanced.
No active signals — S component is at neutral baseline (0.5), contributing no extra risk weight.
No major regulatory restrictions or advisories recorded across monitored jurisdictions (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others).
How are the Low / Moderate / High / Critical thresholds defined?
The four risk levels are fixed score bands. A score is assigned to exactly one level based on where it falls:
| Level | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | 0.0 – 2.9 | Sparse or predominantly beneficial evidence. No active safety alerts. |
| MODERATE | 3.0 – 5.4 | Mixed signals — some risk alongside benefit. Caution at high doses or in sensitive groups. |
| HIGH | 5.5 – 7.4 | Multiple studies or regulatory alerts documenting adverse effects. Professional oversight recommended. |
| CRITICAL | 7.5 – 10 | Regulatory restrictions in one or more major jurisdictions. Serious documented harm. Avoid without specialist supervision. |
Thresholds are fixed constants (GIRI_Score_Utils::LEVEL_THRESHOLDS). They do not change per ingredient and are never subject to editorial adjustment.