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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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<strong> </strong>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 (<em>I</em>² &gt; 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; <em>P</em> = 0.000), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD: −2.05 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.07, −1.04; <em>P</em> = 0.000), triglycerides (TG) (WMD: −16.10 mg/dL, 95% CI: −20.16, −12.05; <em>P</em> = 0.000), total cholesterol (TC) (WMD: −14.00 mg/dL, 95% CI: −20.46, −7.55; <em>P</em> = 0.000), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (WMD: −7.03 mg/dL, 95% CI: −9.25, −4.81; <em>P</em> = 0.000), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (WMD: −16.57 mg/dL, 95% CI: −20.39, −12.74; <em>P</em> = 0.000), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD: −0.44%, 95% CI: −0.68, −0.20; <em>P</em> = 0.000), insulin (standardized mean difference (SMD): −0.37, 95% CI: −0.53, −0.21; <em>P</em> = 0.000), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD: −1.05, 95% CI: −1.56, −0.54; <em>P</em> = 0.000), C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD: −0.35, 95% CI: −0.57, −0.13; <em>P</em> = 0.002), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) (SMD: −1.07, 95% CI: −1.57, −0.56; <em>P</em> = 0.000), interleukin-6 (IL-6) (SMD: −0.37 , 95% CI: −0.61, −0.13; <em>P</em> = 0.003) levels, they also increased the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (WMD: 3.70 mg/dL, 95% CI: 1.80, 5.60; <em>P</em> = 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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