Nutraceuticals in Personalized and Precision Medicine – a preliminary scoping review indicates efficacy for disease treatment, general wellbeing, and defense against Covid-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutraceuticals have taken the spotlight during the past two decades as evidenced by the exponential publications on them. Long a part of routine in Traditional Medicine Systems, the rise of their mainstream use globally raises both safety concerns and need for better understanding of efficacious dosing. We attempt to answer these questions in this preliminary scoping review by an analysis of current literature on nutraceutical use as a personalized or prescription medicine. Using Covidence, Rayyan, and manual searches of PubMed, 598 unique publications were selected. 32 are systematic reviews, of which we overview the scope. We also overview 30 papers that address adverse drug reactions. To obtain an unbiased landscape of the 598 papers, we analyzed keywords using multiple methods. Expectedly, the most frequent keywords were probiotics and vitamins. Unexpectedly and remarkably, among the highest keyword yield was ‘COVID’. Further exploring this aspect, we review 15 pertinent papers, that not only provide robust evidence for nutraceutical benefits as part of SARS-CoV-2 treatment, but also amplify the notion that nutraceuticals are protective. Overall, the strident note is that further robust targeted research is needed in order to reap the full benefits of nutraceuticals in a safe and efficacious manner.
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".