MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981789926 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0078

1443Safety of red yeast rice supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2019· review· en· W2981789926 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Metabolism and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRed yeast riceTolerabilityInternal medicineAdverse effectStatinOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPlaceboPopulationmyalgiaEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recently, concerns regarding the safety of red yeast rice (RYR) have been raised after the publication of some case reports claiming toxicity. Purpose Since the previous meta-analyses on the effects of RYR were mainly focused on its efficacy to improve the lipid profile and other cardiovascular parameters, we carried out a meta-analysis on safety data derived from the available randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Methods Primary outcomes were musculoskeletal disorders (MuD). Secondary outcomes were non-musculoskeletal adverse events (Non-MuD) and serious adverse events (SAE). Subgroups analyses were carried out considering the intervention (RYR alone or in association with other nutraceutical compounds), monacolin K administered daily dose (≤3, <3–5 and >5 mg/day), follow-up (>12 or ≤12 weeks), with statin therapy or statin-intolerance and type of control treatment (placebo or statin treatment). Results Data were pooled from 52 RCTs comprising 110 treatment arms, which included 8503 subjects, with 4421 in the RYR arm and 4287 in the control one. Monacolin K administration was not associated with increased risk of MuD (odds ratio [OR]=0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53,1.65). (Figure below presents the forest plot comparing the RYR associated risk of MuD in the entire population). Moreover, we found a reduced risk of Non-MuD (OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.50, 0.69) and SAE (OR=0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.64) vs. control. Subgroups analyses confirmed the high tolerability profile of RYR. Furthermore, increasing daily doses of monacolin K were negatively associated with increasing risk of Non-MuD (slope: −0.10; 95% CI: −0.17, −0.03; two-tailed p<0.01). Forest plot on RYR link with MuD risk. Conclusions Based on our data, RYR use as lipid-lowering dietary supplement seems to be overall tolerable and safe in a large population of moderately hypercholesterolaemic subjects. Acknowledgement/Funding None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.010
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it