MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225247702 · doi:10.18502/jnfs.v7i2.9339

The Effect of Nigella Sativa on Cardio-Metabolic Parameters: A Protocol for A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4225247702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elham Razmpoosh, Farhang Mirzavandi, Narges Sadeghi, Sara Safi, Nooshin Abdollahi, Azadeh Nadjarzadeh, Amin Salehi‐Abargouei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutrition and Food Security · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNigella sativa pharmacological applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialNigella sativaMeta-analysisMedicineChecklistSystematic reviewProtocol (science)MEDLINEObservational studyGlycemicJadad scalePsychological interventionInternal medicineTraditional medicineCochrane LibraryAlternative medicinePsychologyInsulinPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Among non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) account for 44% of all deaths. Among natural alternatives, Nigella sativa (NS) exert beneficial effects on cardio-metabolic factors. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis protocol aimed to identify all the findings relevant to the effects of NS on cardio-metabolic factors among adults. Methods: This study was prepared according to PRISMA-P checklist based on Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. An initial literature search was conducted in various databases using MeSH terms and related synonyms. Trials examining the effects of NS versus control group were included. Main outcomes consisted of blood pressure, lipid and glycemic factors, and atherogenic indices. Seven reviewers independently evaluated titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts, extracted information, and assessed the risk of bias. Methodological quality of each randomized controlled trial was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook and the GRADE system, while Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for non-randomized studies. Continuous data of homogeneous studies were meta-analyzed via STATA. Mean differences were calculated as the effect size with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. Conclusion: The quality of both randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed. The evidence from this study can provide information for future clinical trials.

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nutrition and Food SecuritySame topicNigella sativa pharmacological applicationsFrench-language works237,207