The effect of flaxseed supplementation on body weight and body composition: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of 45 randomized placebo‐controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Flaxseed consumption may be inversely associated with obesity; however, findings of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are conflicting. The present study aimed to systematically review and analyse RCTs assessing the effects of flaxseed consumption on body weight and body composition. PubMed, Medline via Ovid, SCOPUS, EMBASE and ISI Web of Sciences databases were searched up to November 2016. Mean changes in body composition indices including body weight, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference were extracted. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with the I 2 test. Publication bias and subgroup analyses were also performed. The quality of articles was assessed via the Jadad scale. A total of 45 RCTs were included. Meta‐analyses suggested a significant reduction in body weight (WMD: −0.99 kg, 95% CI: −1.67, −0.31, p = 0.004), BMI (WMD: −0.30 kg m −2 , 95% CI: −0.53, −0.08, p = 0.008) and waist circumference (WMD: −0.80 cm, 95% CI: −1.40, −0.20, p = 0.008) following flaxseed supplementation. Subgroup analyses showed that using whole flaxseed in doses ≥30 g d −1 , longer‐term interventions (≥12 weeks) and studies including participants with higher BMI (≥ 27 kg m −2 ) had positive effects on body composition. Whole flaxseed is a good choice for weight management particularly for weight reduction in overweight and obese participants.
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 | 0.058 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.066 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".