MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180130918 · doi:10.3390/nu13072355

Folic Acid Supplementation Improves Glycemic Control for Diabetes Prevention and Management: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021· review· en· W3180130918 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Asbaghi, Damoon Ashtary‐Larky, Reza Bagheri, Seyedeh Parisa Moosavian, Hadi Pourmirzaei Olyaei, Behzad Nazarian, Mahnaz Rezaei Kelishadi, Alexei Wong, Darren G. Candow, Frédéric Dutheil, Katsuhiko Suzuki, Amirmansour Alavi Naeini

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicMedicineInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisGastroenterologyInsulin resistanceDiabetes mellitusInsulinConfidence intervalHemoglobinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is a growing interest in the considerable benefits of dietary supplementations, such as folic acid, on the glycemic profile. We aimed to investigate the effects of folic acid supplementation on glycemic control markers in adults. Methods: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of folic acid supplementation on glycemic control markers published up to March 2021 were detected by searching online databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and ISI web of science, using a combination of related keywords. Mean change and standard deviation (SD) of the outcome measures were used to estimate the mean difference between the intervention and control groups at follow-up. Meta-regression and non-linear dose-response analysis were conducted to evaluate the association between pooled effect size and folic acid dosage (mg/day) and duration of the intervention (week). From 1814 detected studies, twenty-four studies reported fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting insulin, hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) as an outcome measure. Results: Results revealed significant reductions in FBG (weighted mean difference (WMD): −2.17 mg/dL, 95% CI: −3.69, −0.65, p = 0.005), fasting insulin (WMD: −1.63 pmol/L, 95% CI: −2.53, −0.73, p < 0.001), and HOMA-IR (WMD: −0.40, 95% CI: −0.70, −0.09, p = 0.011) following folic acid supplementation. No significant effect was detected for HbA1C (WMD: −0.27%, 95% CI: −0.73, 0.18, p = 0.246). The dose-response analysis showed that folic acid supplementation significantly changed HOMA-IR (r = −1.30, p-nonlinearity = 0.045) in non-linear fashion. However, meta-regression analysis did not indicate a linear relationship between dose, duration, and absolute changes in FBG, HOMA-IR, and fasting insulin concentrations. Conclusions: Folic acid supplementation significantly reduces some markers of glycemic control in adults. These reductions were small, which may limit clinical applications for adults with type II diabetes. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0470.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.337 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations74
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207