MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511703858 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2672w

Astaxanthin as a Potential Protector of Liver Function: A Review

2016· review· en· W2511703858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jui‐Tung Chen, Kazuhiko Kotani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstaxanthinCarotenoidMedicineFatty liverOxidative stressLiver injuryXanthophyllLiver functionHyperlipidemiaLiver diseasePharmacologyBiochemistryDiseaseEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protecting against liver damage, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, is currently considered to be important for the prevention of adverse conditions, such as cardiovascular and cancerous diseases. Liver damage often occurs in relation to oxidative stress with metabolic disorders, including cellular lipid accumulation. Astaxanthin (3,3'-dihydroxy-β,β-carotene-4,4'dione), a xanthophyll carotenoid, is a candidate for liver protection. Here, we briefly review astaxanthin as a potential protector against liver damage. In particular, studies have reported antioxidative effects of astaxanthin in liver tissues. Astaxanthin treatment is also reported to improve hyperlipidemia, which indirectly induces the antioxidative effects of astaxanthin on liver pathologies. Furthermore, astaxanthin may alleviate liver damage independent of its antioxidative effects. Of note, there are still insufficient human data to observe the effect of astaxanthin treatment on liver function in clinical conditions. More studies investigating the relevance of astaxanthin on liver protection are necessary.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.489
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Citations58
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative StressFrench-language works237,207