The effects of alpha-lipoic acid supplementation on inflammatory markers among patients with metabolic syndrome and related disorders: 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
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine the effect of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) supplementation on the inflammatory markers among patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and related disorders. We searched the following databases until November 2017: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Three reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias of included primary studies. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I2) statistic. Data were pooled by using the random-effect model and standardized mean difference (SMD) was considered as the summary effect size. Eighteen trials out of 912 potential citations were found to be eligible for our meta-analysis. The findings indicated that ALA supplementation significantly decreased C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD = − 1.52; 95% CI, − 2.25, − 0.80; P < 0.001), interlokin-6 (IL-6) (SMD = − 1.96; 95% CI, − 2.60, − 1.32; P < 0.001), and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels (TNF-α) (SMD = − 2.62; 95% CI, − 3.70, − 1.55; P < 0.001) in patients diagnosed with metabolic diseases. In summary, the current meta-analysis demonstrated the promising impact of ALA administration on decreasing inflammatory markers such as CRP, IL-6 and TNF-α among patients with MetS and related disorders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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