Effects of polyphenol supplementation on hepatic steatosis, intima-media thickness and non-invasive vascular elastography in obese adolescents: a pilot study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasingly prevalent in obese adolescents. Increased systemic inflammation and decreased gut microbial diversity linked to obesity affect the liver and are also associated with cardiovascular diseases in adulthood. However, NAFLD and vascular alterations are reversible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a prospective open-label randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of polyphenols on NAFLD and vascular parameters in obese adolescents. Children aged 12-18 years with hepatic steatosis (n=60) will be recruited. The participants will be randomised with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive polyphenol supplementation one time per day for 8 weeks along with the clinician-prescribed treatment (group B, n=30) or to continue the prescribed treatment without taking any polyphenols (group A, n=30). The outcome measures will be collected from both the groups at day 1 before starting polyphenol supplementation, at day 60 after 8 weeks of supplementation and at day 120, that is, 60 days after supplementation. The changes in hepatic steatosis and vascular parameters will be measured using liver and vascular imaging. Furthermore, anthropometric measures, blood tests and stool samples for gut microbiome analysis will be collected. After evaluating the study's feasibility, we hypothesise that, as a secondary outcome, compared with group A, the adolescents in group B will have improved NAFLD, vascular parameters, systemic inflammation and gut microbiome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by Health Canada and the hospital ethics. Participants and their parents/tutors will both provide consent. Trial results will be communicated to the collaborating gastroenterologists who follow the enrolled participants. Abstracts and scientific articles will be submitted to high-impact radiological societies and journals. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT03994029. Health Canada authorisation referral number: 250 811. Protocole version 13, 2 June 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03994029.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.005 |
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".