MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008017956 · doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000537

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effect of Multi-ingredient Preworkout Supplementation on Strength, Exercise Volume, and Anaerobic Capacity in Healthy Resistance-Trained Individuals

2020· review· en· W3008017956 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

VenueStrength and conditioning journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic exerciseMeta-analysisIngredientResistance trainingMedicinePlaceboStrength trainingPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study assessed the effectiveness of multi-ingredient preworkout supplements (MIPSs) when compared with placebo on strength, power, exercise volume, and anaerobic capacity in healthy resistance-trained individuals. Twenty-two ( n = 22) studies and 458 participants were included. Quality of outcomes was rated as low and was downgraded mostly because of imprecision and high risk of bias. Optimal forms and strategies on MIPS consumption and use has not yet been rigorously examined. Although improvements were noted for lower body strength (repetitions) and upper body power (Watts), most results were inconclusive, and the results showing improvements were presented in low-quality studies (see Video Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/SCJ/A276).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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