MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391614159 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3857624/v1

Effect of soy isoflavones on measures of estrogenicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2024· review· en· W4391614159 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabrielle Viscardi, Songhee Back, Amna Ahmed, Shuting Yang, Sonia Blanco Mejía, Andreea Zurbau, Tauseef Khan, Amanda Selk, Mark Messina, Cyril W.C. Kendall, David J.A. Jenkins, John L. Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesAlmond Board of CaliforniaInternational Nut and Dried Fruit CouncilInstitute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition SciencesCanola Council of CanadaCoca-Cola FoundationUnited Soybean BoardLoblaw Companies LimitedAlberta Pulse Growers CommissionGlycemic Index FoundationU.S. Department of AgricultureKellogg'sDanoneDiabetes CanadaNational Honey BoardSoy Nutrition InstituteUniversity of ChicagoGovernment of CanadaSt. Michael's Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPepsiCoGeneral MillsDanish Cancer Society Research CenterCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsIsoflavonesMeta-analysisSOY ISOFLAVONESRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewMedicineInternal medicineMEDLINEChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite dietary recommendations to consume more plant foods for public and planetary health and the role that soy foods can play in plant-predominant diets, controversies around the effects of soy foods and their components, especially isoflavones, are a barrier to their intake. Given the cardioprotective effects and ability to alleviate menopausal symptoms, addressing this issue is particularly relevant to women. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in postmenopausal women to determine the effect of soy isoflavones on measures of estrogenicity. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials 3-months investigating soy isoflavones versus non-isoflavone controls in postmenopausal women. The four outcomes included endometrial thickness (ET), vaginal maturation index (VMI), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and estradiol. Independent authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to assess certainty of evidence. Results We included 40 trials (52 trial comparisons, n=3285) assessing the effect of a median daily dose of 75 mg of soy isoflavones in substitution for non-isoflavone control over a median of 24 weeks. Isoflavones had no statistically significant effects on any of the measures of estrogenicity; ET (mean difference, -0.22mm [95% confidence interval, -0.45 to 0.01mm], PMD=0.059), VMI (2.31 [-2.14 to 6.75], PMD=0.310), FSH (-0.02IU/L [-2.39 to 2.35IU/L], PMD=0.987), and estradiol (1.61pmol/L [-1.17 to 4.38pmol/L], PMD=0.256). The certainty of evidence was high-to-moderate for all outcomes. Conclusion Current evidence provides a good indication that soy isoflavones do not have an estrogenic effect versus non-isoflavone controls on 4 measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women. This synthesis supports the classification of soy isoflavones as selective estrogen receptor modulators and that isoflavones differ clinically from the hormone estrogen where no assumptions about the health effects of soy foods or isoflavones should be based on an understanding of the effects of the hormone estrogen. Addressing public health concerns around soy foods may support their intake as high-quality plant protein foods with low environmental impact and cost, especially relevant for postmenopausal women, and aligning with sustainable dietary patterns and guidelines. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023439239)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.036
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.384
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207