Effects of quercetin supplementation on glycemic control 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 was performed to determine the effect of quercetin supplementation on glycemic control among patients with metabolic syndrome and related disorders. Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until August 30, 2018. Nine studies with 10 effect sizes out of 357 selected reports were identified eligible to be included in current meta-analysis. The pooled findings indicated that quercetin supplementation did not affect fasting plasma glucose (FPG), homeostasis model of assessment-estimated insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c levels. In subgroup analysis, quercetin supplementation significantly reduced FPG in studies with a duration of ≥8 weeks (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI; -1.81, -0.07]) and used quercetin in dosages of ≥500 mg/day (WMD: -1.08; 95% CI [-2.08, -0.07]). In addition, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in insulin concentrations following supplementation with quercetin in studies that enrolled individuals aged <45 years (WMD: -1.36; 95% CI [-1.76, -0.97]) and that used quercetin in dosages of ≥500 mg/day (WMD: -1.57; 95% CI [-1.98, -1.16]). In summary, subgroup analysis based on duration of ≥8 weeks and used quercetin in dosages of ≥500 mg/day significantly reduced FPG levels.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.057 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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