MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conjugated linoleic acids: why the discrepancy between animal and human studies?

2008· review· en· W1905296997 on OpenAlex
Mélanie Plourde, Stephanie Jew, Stephen C. Cunnane, Peter J.H. Jones

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSte. Anne's HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de SherbrookeAdvanced Foods and Materials Network
KeywordsConjugated linoleic acidAnimal studiesHuman studiesLinoleic acidBody weightAnimal modelBiologyFood scienceChemistryEndocrinologyBiochemistryInternal medicineMedicineFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) are positional and geometric isomers of linoleic acid. In animals, CLA consumption reduces body fat but results in humans are less conclusive. This review of the literature on CLA and loss of body fat or body weight in humans was conducted to explore the reasons for the discrepancy between animal and clinical trials. It indicates that the incongruity between human and animal data is largely related to methodological differences in the experimental design, including age and gender and, to a lesser extent, to CLA dose and isomers. The relatively unknown metabolic fate of CLA in humans may also be a contributing factor that helps explain the lack of consistency for CLA efficacy across studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.227 · 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