Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Disease Prevention: A Review of Current Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a derivative of a fatty acid linoleic acid (LA), has been reported to decrease tumorigenesis in animals. CLA is unique because unlike most antioxidants which are components of plant products, it is present in food from animal sources such as dairy foods and meats. CLA concentrations in dairy products typically range from 2.9 to 8.92 mg/g fat of which the 9-cis, 11-trans isomer makes up to 73% to 93% of the total CLA. Low concentrations of CLA are found in human blood and tissues. In vitro results suggest that CLA is cytotoxic to MCF-7 cells and it inhibits the proliferation of human malignant melanoma and colorectal cancer cells. In animal studies, CLA has inhibited the development of mouse epidermal tumors, mouse forestomach cancer and rat mammary cancer. Hamsters fed CLA collectively had significantly reduced levels of plasma total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, (combined very-low and low-density lipoprotein) and triglycerides with no effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as compared to controls. Dietary CLA modulated certain aspects of the immune defense but had no obvious effect on the growth of an established, aggressive mammary tumor in mice. It is now thought that CLA itself may not have anti-oxidant capabilities but may produce substances which protect cells from the detrimental effects of peroxides. There is, however, insufficient evidence from human epidemiological data, and very few of the animal studies have shown a dose-response relationship with the quantity of CLA feed and the extent of tumor growth. Further research with tumor models is needed to test the efficacy and utility of CLA in cancer and other disease prevention and form the basis of evaluating its effect in humans by observational studies and 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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".