MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196006599

A Comparison of Higher versus Lower Dietary Protein Intake on Glomerular Filtration Rate in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015· review· en· W2196006599 on OpenAlexaff
Arjun Sithamparapillai

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenal functionMeta-analysisMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialCrossover studyInternal medicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaPlaceboChemistryPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Higher protein diets, especially from animal sources, have seen a rise in popularity due to potential metabolic. This may have consequences for kidney function particularly in rising middle class populations who are allocating more income towards meat. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of higher versus lower protein intake on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in adult populations without renal impairment.
\nMethods: Search strategies were developed and electronic databases searched: MEDLINE and EMBASE. Data were extracted up until June 3, 2015. The main outcome measure was GFR and a random effect model (Cochrane’s Review Manager Version 5.3) was used to pool mean differences in GFR values.
\nResults: Database searches yielded 25 trials from 1914 articles that were eligible for analysis based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. 12 studies were randomized controlled trials and 11 studies were crossover trials. As a result of data presented, 2 crossover studies were treated as 4 trials to result in 25 total trials. A total of 810 subjects from 25 trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analyses. The age of participants was 24-62 years and their BMI was 21-36 kg/m2. Higher protein compared to lower protein-containing diets were associated with increased GFR values [mean difference (MD): 8.33 ml/min (95% CI 4.87 to 11.79), P < 0.00001] but this was less pronounced when assessing change from baseline GFR values [MD: 4.71 ml/min (95% CI 0.06 to 9.36), P = 0.05]. Moreover, significant heterogeneity was present and funnel plot asymmetry indicated potential publication bias in both meta-analyses.
\nConclusion: Higher protein diets were associated with increased GFR, however, these results were inconclusive due to significant heterogeneity and overestimation by random effect analyses. There is still no clear evidence that high protein diets negatively impact renal function in healthy 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207