MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

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.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.238
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

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

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207