MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409209826 · doi:10.3390/nu17071273

Selected Nutrients to Oppose Muscle Disuse Following Arthroscopic Orthopedic Surgery: A Narrative Review

2025· review· en· W4409209826 on OpenAlexaff
Dean M. Cordingley, Maryam Taheri, Moein Fasihiyan, Jarret M. Woodmass, Stephen M. Cornish

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of ManitobaPan Am Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthopedic surgeryGlutamineNarrative reviewMedicineCreatineSarcopeniaSkeletal muscleMuscle strengthCreatine kinaseMuscle massSurgeryMuscle atrophyBioinformaticsAmino acidInternal medicinePhysiologyIntensive care medicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Orthopedic surgery and the corresponding events (i.e., immobilization and muscle disuse) result in a cascade of biological events to promote healing but can come with the loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength. A good nutritional status of patients is associated with positive post-surgical outcomes, with macronutrients receiving the majority of emphasis in the research literature. However, beyond the surgical literature, there are other nutrients and nutritional supplements that have been established or postulated to improve skeletal muscle mass and strength. Objective: The purpose of this narrative review is to provide evidence for the utility of using creatine, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, glutamine, essential amino acids-branched chain amino acids (EAA-BCAA) and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation and the role they may play in minimizing muscle atrophy and strength loss following orthopedic surgery. The review will also highlight areas of future research to support a better understanding of the efficacy of supplementing with these substances pre- and/or post-surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrients→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→