MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414651248 · doi:10.3390/nu17193126

Effects of Citrulline or Watermelon Supplementation on Body Composition: A Systematic Review and Dose–Response Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414651248 on OpenAlexaff
Damoon Ashtary‐Larky, Shooka Mohammadi, Leila Hajizadeh, Darren G. Candow, Scott C. Forbes, Reza Afrisham, Vida Farrokhi, José António, Katsuhiko Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitrullineObesityFolic acid supplementationNutritional SupplementationHealth benefitsBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: L-Citrulline (CIT) is a non-essential amino acid abundant in watermelon and commonly used as a dietary supplement to enhance exercise performance. Although its benefits for endurance and resistance training are well documented, its effects on body composition remain uncertain. This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of CIT supplementation on anthropometric parameters. METHODS: A comprehensive search of major databases identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2025. A random-effects model was used to synthesize the data. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs were included. Overall, CIT supplementation had no substantial effects on body mass index (BMI), body weight, fat mass (FM), waist circumference (WC), body fat percentage (BFP), and fat-free mass (FFM). Subgroup analyses revealed reductions in FM among participants over 40 years of age and in those administered more than 6 g/day of CIT. Interventions lasting 3 to 8 weeks were associated with a significant increase in FFM. Dose-response analyses suggested a non-linear association between CIT supplementation duration and changes in FM and FFM. CONCLUSIONS: CIT supplementation appears to have no overall effect on body composition. However, exploratory findings indicated potential benefits at higher doses or shorter durations. Rigorous trials controlling for dietary intake and training variables are needed to clarify its long-term effects.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207