Selenium supplementation and clinical outcomes: an umbrella review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Selenium is a trace element essential for the normal functions of different human body systems and its deficiency has been associated with different disease states. In recent years, many systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials in humans have demonstrated various properties of selenium such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, increased immunity, blocking tumour invasion and metastasis in various pathological conditions. Therefore, there is need to summarize these recent findings in one single paper to facilitate the decision making of clinicians and policy makers regarding the inclusion of selenium supplementation in routine clinical practice, treatment guidelines and essential medicine list. This study would guide researchers towards future research and design of clinical trials. Objectives The objective of this umbrella review is to assess the clinical outcomes of selenium supplementation in different disease states and to determine its therapeutic implications. Eligibility criteria Only systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials reporting clinical outcomes after the use of selenium alone as a supplement in the management of diseases will be included. While primary studies, systematic reviews that involved the administration of selenium in combination with other trace elements for the prevention or treatment of diseases will be excluded. Methods The following databases will be searched by three independent reviewers: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE database of systematic reviews, CINAHL, JBI Evidence synthesis, EPISTEMONIKOS, SCOPUS, Web of Science and TRIP PRO. Unpublished reviews will be searched using ProQuest for dissertations and Theses, Canadian Agency for drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) database of Grey matters and GOOGLE scholar. Systematic reviews published in the last 10 years (2013 to 2023). There will be no language restriction. The services of a translator will be employed if studies in other languages were found. Selection of reviews and data extraction will be done by 3 independent reviewers. Summary of findings will be presented in tables accompanied by texts where necessary. Strengths and limitations of this study This is the first umbrella review on the use of selenium supplements for disease management. Secondly, the findings from this study would facilitate the decision making of clinicians and policy makers regarding the inclusion of selenium supplementation in routine clinical practice, treatment guidelines and essential medicine list. Nevertheless, a major limitation of this umbrella review would be a reduced scope of eligible studies because only systematic reviews/ or meta-analysis that included randomized clinical trials will be considered.
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 | 0.073 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.012 |
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".