Effect of Acute and Chronic Ingestion of Exogenous Ketone Supplements on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exogenous ketone supplements have been suggested to have potential cardiovascular benefits, but their overall effect on blood pressure is unclear. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of exogenous ketone supplements on blood pressure (BP) and concomitant changes in resting heart rate (HR). Five databases were searched on January 27th, 2023, for randomized and non-randomized studies. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed including all studies jointly and separately for acute and chronic ingestion of ketone supplements. Out of 4012 studies identified in the search, 4 acute and 6 chronic studies with n = 187 participants were included. Pooled results (n = 10) showed no change in systolic (SMD [95% CI]= −0.14 [−0.40; 0.11]; I2= 30%; p = 0.17) or diastolic BP (−0.12 [−0.30; 0.05]; I2= 0%; p = 0.69), with a potential tendency observed toward increased resting heart rate (0.17 [-0.14; 0.47]; I2= 40%; p = 0.10). Similar results for systolic and diastolic BP were observed when assessing separately the effect of acute and chronic ingestion of ketone supplements (p ≥ 0.33). Supplement dosage was found to modulate the increase in resting heart rate (0.019 ± 0.006; p = 0.013; R2=100%), suggesting that higher supplement doses lead to a higher resting heart rate. Based on currently available data, acute or prolonged ingestion of ketone supplements does not seem to modulate BP. However, a tendency for HR to increase after acute ingestion was observed, particularly with higher doses. Higher quality studies with appropriate standardized measurements are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".