MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antioxidant micronutrients for lung disease in cystic fibrosis

2010· review· en· W1898971099 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Shamseer, Denise Adams, Neil E. Brown, Jeffrey Johnson, Sunita Vohra

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of AlbertaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystic fibrosisMicronutrientLung diseaseAntioxidantLungDiseaseInternal medicinePathologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Airway infection leads to progressive damage of the lungs in cystic fibrosis (CF), partly due to oxidative stress. Supplementation of antioxidant micronutrients (vitamin E, vitamin C, ß-carotene and selenium) may help maintain an oxidant-antioxidant balance. Current literature suggests a relationship between oxidative status and lung function. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize existing knowledge of the effect of vitamin C, vitamin E, ß-carotene and selenium in CF lung disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane CF and Genetic Disorders Group CF Trials Register, PubMed, CINAHL and AMED were searched using detailed search strategies. We contacted authors of included studies and checked reference lists of these studies for additional, potentially relevant studies.Last search of CF Trials Register: 09 September 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of people with CF with explicitly stated diagnostic criteria, comparing vitamin E, vitamin C, ß-carotene and selenium (individually or in combination) to placebo or standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. Primary outcomes are lung function and quality of life; secondary outcomes are oxidative stress, inflammation, body mass index, days on antibiotics and adverse events during supplementation. If meta-analysed, studies were subgrouped according to combined or single antioxidant supplementation. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials and one quasi-randomized controlled trial were included; only three trials (87 participants) presented data suitable for analysis. Based on two trials, there was no significant improvement in lung function; one trial indicated significant improvement in quality of life favouring control, mean difference -0.06 points on the quality of well-being scale (95% confidence interval -0.12 to -0.01). Based on two trials, selenium-dependent glutathione peroxidase enzyme significantly improved in favour of combined supplementation, mean difference 1.60 units per gram of haemoglobin (95% CI 0.30 to 2.90) and selenium supplementation, mean difference 10.20 units per gram of haemoglobin (95% CI 2.22 to 18.18). All plasma antioxidant levels, except vitamin C, significantly improved with supplementation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be conflicting evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of antioxidant supplementation in CF. Based on the evidence, antioxidants appear to decrease quality of life and oxidative stress; however, few trials contributed data towards analysis. Further trials examining clinically important outcomes and elucidation of a clear biological pathway of oxidative stress in CF are necessary before a firm conclusion regarding effects of antioxidants supplementation can be drawn.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207