Acute Liver Failure Caused by ‘Fat Burners’ and Dietary Supplements: A Case Report and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, people are struggling with obesity. Many effective, nonconventional methods of weight reduction, such as herbal and natural dietary supplements, are increasingly being sought. Fat burners are believed to raise metabolism, burn more calories and hasten fat loss. Despite patient perceptions that herbal remedies are free of adverse effects, some supplements are associated with severe hepatotoxicity. The present report describes a young healthy woman who presented with fulminant hepatic failure requiring emergent liver transplantation caused by a dietary supplement and fat burner containing usnic acid, green tea and guggul tree extracts. Thorough investigation, including histopathological examination, revealed no other cause of hepatotoxicity. The present case adds to the increasing number of reports of hepatotoxicity associated with dietary supplements containing usnic acid, and highlights that herbal extracts from green tea or guggul tree may not be free of adverse effects. Until these products are more closely regulated and their advertising better scrutinized, physicians and patients should become more familiar with herbal products that are commonly used as weight loss supplements and recognize those that are potentially harmful.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".