African Mango (Irvingia gabonensis) Extract for Weight Loss: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of African mango (Irvingia gabonensis) extract on weight loss in humans. Design: A systematic review of articles evaluating the effect of African mango, IGOB131, dikanut, bush mango or Irvingia gabonensis on weight and obesity was conducted. Population: Three randomized, controlled trials were identified and met criteria for inclusion in the review with a total of 214 subjects receiving Irvingia gabonensis at various doses alone or in combination with other dietary supplements versus placebo over a period of four to ten weeks. Results: All studies demonstrated a decrease in weight ranging from 4-12kg (p<0.05). Other measures of weight loss including body fat percentage (p<0.05) and waist circumference (p<0.01) were also significantly decreased by Irvingia gabonensis. Improvements were also seen in total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein and fasting blood glucose. Few adverse events were reported but include insomnia, flatulence and headache. Conclusions: Irvingia gabonensis demonstrates potential for significant weight loss of up to 12 kilograms in overweight and obese subjects over a period of 10 weeks with few reported adverse events. Larger studies including subjects from multiple countries for 6 to 12 months should be conducted to elucidate the long-term effects in various populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".