MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981896879 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.1676195

Could grape-based food supplements prevent the development of chronic kidney disease?

2019· review· en· W2981896879 on OpenAlexaff
Ji‐Xiao Zhu, Caigan Du

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxidative stressKidney diseaseMedicineDiseaseDiabetes mellitusGrape seed extractPathophysiologyProanthocyanidinOxidative damageCatechinInternal medicinePhysiologyAntioxidantEndocrinologyPolyphenolChemistryBiochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global health challenge due to its high prevalence, and it increases the risk of development of end-stage renal disease. Although the pathophysiology of CKD is complicated and has not been fully understood, the elevated oxidative stress is considered to play a central role in the development of this disease, thus it becomes an attractive target for CKD prevention or management. The grape extract is one of the rich sources of antioxidants. Literature demonstrates that the consumption of grape antioxidants has significant benefits to the reduction of oxidative stress in different health conditions. In this article, we reviewed the role of the oxidative stress in CKD pathophysiology, and both the preclinical and clinical findings of anti-oxidative activity of proanthocyanidins in grape extracts (catechin, epicatechin, procyanidin B1 and procyanidin), particularly in subjects with CKD. It has been shown that grape-based antioxidants have beneficial effects on chronic metabolic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, and may also prevent the development of CKD and cardiovascular disease.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicGinkgo biloba and Cashew ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207