The Effects of Quercetin Supplementation on Blood Pressures and Endothelial Function 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
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to determine the effect of quercetin administration on blood pressures and endothelial function among patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and related disorders. METHODS: We searched systematically online databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science to identify the relevant RCTs until December 2018. Q-test and I2 statistics were applied to assess heterogeneity among the included studies. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and weighted mean difference (WMD) was considered as the overall effect size. RESULTS: Out of 284 citations, 8 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. We found a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (WMD: -1.69; 95% CI: -3.22, -0.17) following the intake of quercetin supplements. However, quercetin supplementation did not significantly affect diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD: -3.14; 95% CI: -8.24, 1.95), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) (WMD: -24.49; 95% CI: -53.74, 4.77) and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) (WMD: -5.78; 95% CI: -12.93, 1.38). CONCLUSION: In summary, the current meta-analysis demonstrated that quercetin supplementation significantly reduced SBP, yet did not affect DBP, VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
| 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