The impact of branched‐chain amino acid supplementation on measures of glucose homeostasis in individuals with hepatic disorders: A systematic review of clinical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Branched chain amino acid (BCAA) supplementation may influence glucose metabolism in individuals with an impaired glyceamic profile. This systematic review investigated the effects of isolated BCAA supplementation on measures of glucose homeostasis in individuals with hepatic disorders. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for published clinical trials that investigated the effects of isolated BCAA supplementation on measures of glucose homeostasis, including serum glucose and insulin, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) scores. RESULTS: Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria. Only one study revealed a decrease in serum glucose from BCAA supplementation compared to three studies that showed increases. Five studies demonstrated no significant changes in serum glucose, and two studies displayed no changes in HbA1c following BCAA supplementation. Serum levels of insulin were decreased in three studies, remained unchanged in one, and increased in the remaining three studies. BCAA supplementation reduced HOMA-IR scores in two studies, increased HOMA-IR scores in another two, or resulted in no changes in two other studies. CONCLUSIONS: BCAA supplementation in isolation had no effect on overall glucose homeostasis in individuals with hepatic disorders, although some improvements on serum insulin levels and HOMA-IR scores were observed. Overall, there is little evidence to support the utilisation of BCAA supplementation as a potential nutritional strategy for improving measures of glucose homeostasis in individuals with hepatic disorders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".