The effects of pomegranate consumption on liver function enzymes in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published clinical trial studies to provide a more accurate estimation of pomegranate effects on liver enzymes in different clinical conditions. METHODS: statistic. Random effects models were assessed based on the heterogeneity tests, and pooled data were determined as the weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Out of 3811 records, 9 eligible RCTs were included in the current study. However, there are limitations in the included studies, which can be mentioned in the dose, duration, and type of interventions that are different among the studies, as well as the small number of included studies. All this causes heterogeneity among studies and this heterogeneity limits the consistency of the results. Our meta-analysis showed that pomegranate intake had a significant effect on lowering aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels in long-term intervention (> 8 weeks), obese (BMI≥30) individuals, or patients with metabolic disorders. Furthermore, results showed a significant decrease in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in the long-term intervention (> 8 weeks) or in patients with metabolic disorders following the pomegranate intake. Combined results from the random-effects model indicated a significant reduction in gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels (WMD: -5.43 IU/L 95% CI: -7.78 to -3.08; p < 0.001;) following the pomegranate intake. The results of Egger's test mentioned a significant publication bias for the trials examining the effect of pomegranate intake on AST (p = 0.007) and ALT (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that long-term pomegranate intake may be effective in ameliorating liver enzymes in adults with obesity and metabolic disorders who are more likely to have elevated baseline liver enzymes due to some degree of liver injury or tissue damage. However, some studies failed to conduct independent biochemical characterization of the product used, including the presence and quantity of polyphenols, antioxidants, and proanthocyanidins.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".