<i>Citrus aurantium</i> and synephrine alkaloids in the treatment of overweight and obesity: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is a major health problem facing the developed and developing world. Efforts by individuals, health professionals, educators, and policy makers to combat the escalating trend of growing obesity prevalence have been multifaceted and mixed in outcome. Various dietary supplements have been marketed to reduce obesity. These products have been suggested to accomplish this by decreasing energy intake and energy absorption, and/or increasing metabolic rate. Ephedra, one such supplement, was banned from sale in the US market because of concerns about adverse events. Another substance, Citrus aurantium, which contains several compounds including synephrine alkaloids, has been suggested as a safe alternative. This review examines the evidence for safety and efficacy of C. aurantium and synephrine alkaloids as examined in animal studies, clinical weight loss trials, acute physiologic studies and case reports. Although at least three reviews of C. aurantium have been published, our review expands upon these by: (i) distinguishing and evaluating the efficacy of C. aurantium and related compounds; (ii) including results from previously unreviewed research; (iii) incorporating recent case reports that serve to highlight, in an anecdotal way, potential adverse events related to the use of C. aurantium and related compounds; and (iv) offering recommendations to guide the design of future trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of C. aurantium. While some evidence is promising, we conclude that larger and more rigorous clinical trials are necessary to draw adequate conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of C. aurantium and synephrine alkaloids for promoting weight loss.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".