MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072884377 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.391

Influence of eicosapentaenoic acid supplementation on lean body mass in cancer cachexia

2011· review· en· W2072884377 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel A. Murphy, Edwina Yeung, Vera C. Mazurak, Marina Mourtzakis

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEicosapentaenoic acidCachexiaCancer cachexiaClinical trialLean body massCancerAppetiteMedicinePolyunsaturated fatty acidInternal medicineOncologyBioinformaticsEndocrinologyFatty acidBiologyBody weightBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer cachexia is characterised by a progressive loss of muscle, resulting in functional impairment and shorter survival. Eicosapentaenoic acid, an n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid found in fish, has been studied for its role as an anti-cachexia therapy. Initial results of eicosapentaenoic supplementation in advanced cancer were promising with improvements in lean body mass (LBM), appetite and quality of life. However, subsequent larger phase III clinical trials reported minimal benefits of supplementation. Recently, several studies have used different study designs, which may provide insight on the effectiveness of eicosapentaenoic in cancer cachexia and also on potential sources of divergent results in previous trials. This review examines the potential benefit of eicosapentaenoic supplementation on LBM and discusses limitations with current studies to identify methods which may aid in progressing the research of future clinical trials.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations100
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207