The Effects of Coenzyme Q10 Supplementation on Lipid Profiles Among Patients with Metabolic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Oxidative stress and inflammation are key parameters in developing metabolic disorders. Hence, antioxidant intake might be an appropriate approach. Several studies have evaluated the effect of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation on lipid profile among patients with metabolic diseases, though findings are controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effects of CoQ10 supplementation on lipid profile in patients with metabolic disorders. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases until July 2017. Prospective clinical trials were selected assessing the effect of CoQ10 supplementation on different biomarkers. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. A fixed- or random-effects model was used to pool the data, which expressed as a standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was measured using a Q-test and with I2 statistics. RESULTS: A total of twenty-one controlled trials (514 patients and 525 controls) were included. The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in serum triglycerides levels (SMD -0.28; 95% CI, -0.56, -0.005). CoQ10 supplementation also decreased total-cholesterol (SMD -0.07; 95% CI, -0.45, 0.31), increased LDL- (SMD 0.04; 95% CI, -0.27, 0.36), and HDL-cholesterol levels (SMD 0.10; 95% CI, -0.32, 0.51), not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CoQ10 supplementation may significantly reduce serum triglycerides levels, and help to improve lipid profiles in patients with metabolic disorders. Additional prospective studies are recommended using higher supplementation doses and longer intervention period.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| 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 it