MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392170141 · doi:10.26599/fshw.2024.9250002

Effects of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics supplementation on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2024· article· en· W4392170141 on OpenAlexaff
Yanyan Tian, Jiayue Xia, Lihua Li, Ligang Yang, Hua Xiao, Yuanyuan Wang, Chen Zhang, Tiange Bu, Guiju Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Science and Human Wellness · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynbioticsMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePrebioticDiabetes mellitusType 2 Diabetes MellitusIntensive care medicineEndocrinologyProbioticFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation on the effects of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science to identify clinical trials published up to 31 March 2023. Data was pooled using a random-effects model if significant heterogeneity (I² > 50%), otherwise use a fixed-effects model. Fifty-six trials that included 3 317 patients were enrolled for analysis. Meta-analysis reported that probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) (weighted mean difference (WMD): −3.57 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): −5.36, −1.78; P = 0.000), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD: −2.05 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.07, −1.04; P = 0.000), triglycerides (TG) (WMD: −16.10 mg/dL, 95% CI: −20.16, −12.05; P = 0.000), total cholesterol (TC) (WMD: −14.00 mg/dL, 95% CI: −20.46, −7.55; P = 0.000), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (WMD: −7.03 mg/dL, 95% CI: −9.25, −4.81; P = 0.000), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (WMD: −16.57 mg/dL, 95% CI: −20.39, −12.74; P = 0.000), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD: −0.44%, 95% CI: −0.68, −0.20; P = 0.000), insulin (standardized mean difference (SMD): −0.37, 95% CI: −0.53, −0.21; P = 0.000), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD: −1.05, 95% CI: −1.56, −0.54; P = 0.000), C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD: −0.35, 95% CI: −0.57, −0.13; P = 0.002), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (SMD: −1.07, 95% CI: −1.57, −0.56; P = 0.000), interleukin-6 (IL-6) (SMD: −0.37 , 95% CI: −0.61, −0.13; P = 0.003) levels, they also increased the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (WMD: 3.70 mg/dL, 95% CI: 1.80, 5.60; P = 0.000) levels in T2DM patients, as compared to the placebo groups. This meta-analysis supports the use of probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation as an adjunctive therapy to improve blood pressure, glycemic control parameters, lipid profile and inflammatory markers in patients with T2DM, which are well-known cardiovascular 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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.044
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Science and Human WellnessSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207