Effects of Daily Intake of Rosehip Extract on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Blood Glucose Levels: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates the effects of the daily intake of rosehip extract on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood glucose levels. It synthesizes findings from randomized clinical trials focusing on cardiovascular and metabolic health outcomes. The review includes studies employing various forms of rosehip supplementation, assessing primary outcomes such as LDL-C, HDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose (FBG), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes, such as body weight, BMI, and blood pressure, are also considered. The paper discusses the potential mechanisms of rosehip's action, including modulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and effects on various metabolic pathways. The results indicate mixed effects on lipid profiles and blood glucose levels, with some studies showing significant benefits. This review underscores the need for further research to confirm optimal dosages, treatment durations, and rosehip's efficacy in diverse populations, considering its favorable safety profile. The findings suggest the potential of rosehip extract as a complementary agent in managing cardiometabolic risk factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".