A dose-response and meta-analysis of phytosterols consumption on liver enzymes
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
Purpose The results of human studies evaluating the efficacy of plant Phytosterols on liver function were inconsistent. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to eliminate these controversies about the Phytosterols consumption on liver serum biochemistry in adult subjects. Design/methodology/approach The literatures systematically searched throughout PubMed and Scopus databases up to June 2018; it was conducted by using related keywords. Estimates of effect sizes were expressed based on weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI from the random-effects model (erSimonian and Laird method). Heterogeneity across studies was assessed by using I2 index. Eighteen studies reported the effects of Phytosterols (PS) supplementation on liver serum biochemistry. Findings The current meta-analysis did not show a significant effect on ALT (MD: 0.165 U/L, 95% CI: −1.25, 1.58, p = 0.820), AST (MD: −0.375 IU/Liter, 95% CI: −1.362, 0.612, p = 0.457), ALP (MD: 0.804 cm, 95% CI: −1.757, 3.366, p = 0.538), GGT (MD: 0.431 U/L, 95% CI: −1.803, 2.665, p = 0.706) and LDH (MD: 0.619 U/L, 95% CI: −4.040, 5.277, p = 0.795) following PS consumption. Originality/value The authors found that no protective or toxic effects occur after the consumption of Phytosterols on liver enzymes including ALT, AST, ALP, LDH and GGT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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