MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376890876 · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.05.011

Whey Protein Supplementation with or without Vitamin D on Sarcopenia-Related Measures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4376890876 on OpenAlexafffund
Nasrin Nasimi, Zahra Sohrabi, Everson Araújo Nunes, Erfan Sadeghi, Sanaz Jamshidi, Zohreh Gholami, Marzieh Akbarzadeh, Shiva Faghih, Masoumeh Akhlaghi, Stuart M. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nutrition · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCanada Research ChairsDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsSarcopeniaWhey proteinMedicineLean body massVitamin D and neurologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialNutritional SupplementationVitaminMeta-analysisConfidence intervalSarcopenic obesityGastroenterologyEndocrinologyPhysical therapyBiologyBiochemistryBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of supplementation with whey protein alone or with vitamin D on sarcopenia-related outcomes in older adults are unclear. We aimed to assess the effect of whey protein supplementation alone or with vitamin D on lean mass (LM), strength, and function in older adults with or without sarcopenia or frailty. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that investigated the effect of whey protein supplementation with or without vitamin D on sarcopenia outcomes in healthy and sarcopenic or frail older adults were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for LM, muscle strength, and physical function data. The analysis showed that whey protein supplementation had no effect on LM and muscle strength; nevertheless, a significant improvement was found in physical function (SMD = 0.561; 95% confidence interval [CIs]: 0.256, 0.865, n = 33), particularly gait speed (GS). On the contrary, whey protein supplementation significantly improved LM (SMD = 0.982; 95% CI: 0.228, 1.736; n = 11), appendicular lean mass and physical function (SMD = 1.211; 95% CI: 0.588, 1.834; n = 16), and GS in sarcopenic/frail older adults. By contrast, co-supplementation with vitamin D enhanced LM gains (SMD =0.993; 95% CI: 0.112, 1.874; n = 11), muscle strength (SMD =2.005; 95% CI: 0.975, 3.035; n = 11), and physical function (SMD = 3.038; 95% CI: 2.196, 3.879; n = 18) significantly. Muscle strength and physical function improvements after whey protein supplementation plus vitamin D were observed without resistance exercise (RE) and short study duration subgroups. Moreover, the combination of whey protein and vitamin D with RE did not enhance the effect of RE. Whey protein supplementation improved LM and function in sarcopenic/frail older adults but had no positive effect in healthy older persons. By contrast, our meta-analysis showed that co-supplementation with whey protein and vitamin D is effective, particularly in healthy older adults, which is likely owing, we propose, to the correction of vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency. The trial was registered at https://inplasy.com as INPLASY202240167.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

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

Citations70
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in NutritionSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207