Intestinal Barrier Permeability in Obese Individuals with or without Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altered intestinal barrier permeability has been associated with obesity and its metabolic and inflammatory complications in animal models. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the evidence regarding the association between obesity with or without Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) and alteration of the intestinal barrier permeability in humans. A systematic search of the studies published up until April 2022 in Latin America & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases was conducted. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) checklist. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Eight studies were included and classified as moderate to high quality. Alteration of intestinal barrier permeability was evaluated by zonulin, lactulose/mannitol, sucralose, sucrose, lactulose/L-rhamnose, and sucralose/erythritol. Impaired intestinal barrier permeability measured by serum and plasma zonulin concentration was positively associated with obesity with MetS. Nonetheless, the GRADE assessment indicated a very low to low level of evidence for the outcomes. Thus, clear evidence about the relationship between alteration of human intestinal barrier permeability, obesity, and MetS was not found.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".