MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resistance Exercise and Creatine Supplementation on Fat Mass in Adults ≪ 50 Years of Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4381188783 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos Prokopidis, Scott C. Forbes, Darren G. Candow, Flavia Rusterholz, Bill Campbell, Sergej M. Ostojić

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreatineMedicineInsulin resistanceInternal medicineObesityPlaceboMeta-analysisEndocrinologyResistance trainingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adiposity is associated with adverse health conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. The combination of resistance exercise and creatine supplementation has been shown to decrease body fat % in adults ≥ 50 years of age. However, the effects in adults < 50 years of age is unknown. To address this limitation, we systematically reviewed the literature and performed several meta-analyses comparing studies that included resistance exercise and creatine supplementation to resistance exercise and placebo. Twelve studies were included involving 266 participants. Adults (< 50 years of age) that supplemented with creatine and performed resistance exercise experienced a significant reduction in body fat % (-1.19%, p=0.006) and a non-significant reduction in absolute fat mass (-0.09 kg, p=0.88). Collectively, the combination of resistance exercise and creatine supplementation produces a very small reduction in body fat % in adults < 50 years of age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.019
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207