MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220913543 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12952

Effects of β‐hydroxy β‐methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation on muscle mass, function, and other outcomes in patients with cancer: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4220913543 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCancerAdverse effectCINAHLInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECochrane LibraryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low muscle mass is prevalent among patients with cancer and a predictor of adverse clinical outcomes. To counteract muscle loss, β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation has been proposed as a potential therapy for older adults and various diseases states. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects and safety of HMB supplementation in relation to muscle mass and function and other clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, ProQuest, and grey literature for reports published from inception to December 2021 was conducted. Included studies provided supplements containing any dose of HMB to adult patients with active cancer. A synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted using a vote-counting approach based solely on the direction of the effect (i.e. regardless of statistical significance). Risk of bias was assessed for each outcome domain, and evidence from higher-quality studies (i.e. those with either low or moderate risk of bias) was examined. Safety was evaluated using both lower-quality and higher-quality studies. Fifteen studies were included, in which six were randomized controlled trials in patients with various cancer types and treatments. Studies prescribed HMB combined with amino acids (73.3%), HMB in oral nutritional supplements (20.0%), or both supplement types (6.7%); Ca-HMB doses of 3.0 g/day were provided in 80.0% of the studies. Four studies had high risk of bias across all outcome domains. Considering the higher-quality studies, evidence of a beneficial effect of HMB supplementation was found in four of four studies for muscle mass, two of two for muscle function, three of three for hospitalization, and five of seven for survival. In contrast, no beneficial effects of HMB on quality of life or body weight was found in two of four and three of five studies, respectively. A limited number of higher-quality studies evaluating the impact of HMB on cancer therapy-related toxicity, inflammation, and tumour response were observed. No serious adverse effects directly related to the nutrition intervention were reported. Although limited, current evidence suggests that HMB supplementation has a beneficial effect on muscle mass and function in patients with cancer. Well-designed trials are needed to further explore the clinical benefit of HMB supplementation in this patient population.

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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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 head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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