MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388146225 · doi:10.2196/40857

Clinical Efficacy of Nutritional Supplements in Atopic Dermatitis: Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4388146225 on OpenAlex
Isaac Weber, Emily Woolhiser, Noah Keime, Margaret Wasvary, Madeline Adelman, Torunn E Sivesind, Robert P. Dellavalle

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthPfizer
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisSynbioticsMicronutrientTraditional medicineProbioticDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that presents with symptoms of intense pruritus, dryness, and erythema. Dissatisfaction with first-line therapies for AD, the desire to avoid steroids, and the extreme cost of effective biologics have created a demand for alternative treatment options such as oral vitamins and nutritional supplements. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements, pre- and probiotics, and vitamin deficiencies and supplements on AD symptomology and clinical course. METHODS: We searched Scopus, PubMed, and MEDLINE (Ovid interface) for English-language articles published between 1993 and 2023. The final search was conducted on June 22, 2023. The search terms comprised the following: "(Atopic Dermatitis or Atopic Eczema) AND (supplement OR vitamin OR mineral OR micronutrients OR Fish Oil OR Omega Fatty Acid OR Probiotics OR Prebiotics OR apple cider vinegar OR collagen OR herbal OR fiber)." RESULTS: A total of 18 studies-3 (17%) evaluating vitamins, 4 (22%) evaluating herbal medicine compounds, 2 (11%) evaluating single-ingredient nutritional supplements, and 9 (50%) evaluating pre- and probiotics-involving 881 patients were included in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is weak evidence to support any one nutritional supplement intervention for the alleviation of AD symptoms. Multiple trials (4/18, 22%) showed promise for supplements such as Zemaphyte, kefir, and freeze-dried whey with Cuscuta campestris Yuncker extract. The most evidence was found on the effectiveness of probiotics on the clinical course of AD. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Ligilactobacillus salivarius, and Lactobacillus acidophilus specifically showed evidence of efficacy and safety across multiple studies (6/18, 33%). However, larger, more extensive randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the true effectiveness of these supplements on the broader population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023470596; https://tinyurl.com/4a9477u7.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.369 · 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