MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926504562 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5324456.v2

Are Supplemental Branched-Chain Amino Acids Beneficial During the Oncological Peri-Operative Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· other· en· W6926504562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInfections and bacterial resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyRandomized controlled trialAmino acidSystematic reviewCohortCohort studyMalnutrition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs; leucine, isoleucine, and valine) are essential amino acids involved in immune responses, and may have roles in protein malnutrition and sarcopenia. Furthermore, certain liver diseases have been associated with a decreased Fischer’s ratio (BCAAs to aromatic amino acids; phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BCAAs use in patients with cancer undergoing surgery.Methods:MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched (inception to July 24, 2020) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies in English evaluating BCAAs (alone or in combinations) during the oncological peri-operative period. Study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal were done in duplicate. RCT risk-of-bias was appraised using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, and observational studies’ quality assessment was conducted with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate.Results:20 articles were included comprising 13 RCTs and 6 observational cohort studies in 7 reports and 2019 total participants overall. Among 13 RCTs, 77% involved liver cancer. Methodological study quality scored substantial risk-of-bias across most RCTs. Meta-analysis of RCTs found a 38% decreased risk of post-operative infections in BCAAs group compared to controls (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.87; <i>P</i> = .006; number of RCTs, <i>k</i> = 6; total sample size, N = 389; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). BCAAs were also found to be beneficial for ascites (RR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.86; <i>P</i> = .008; <i>k</i> = 4; N = 296; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), body weight (MD = 3.24 kg; 95% CI = 0.44 to 6.04; <i>P</i> = .02; <i>k</i> = 3; N = 196; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 24%), and hospitalization length (MD = −2.07 days; 95% CI = −3.97 to −0.17; <i>P</i> = .03; <i>k</i> = 5; N = 362; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 59%). No differences were found between BCAAs and controls for mortality, recurrence, other post-operative complications (liver failure, edema, pleural effusion), blood loss, quality of life, ammonia level, and prothrombin time. No serious adverse events were related to BCAAs; however, serious adverse events were reported due to intravenous catheters. No safety concerns from observational studies were identified.Conclusions:Branched-chain amino acids during the oncological surgical period demonstrated promise in reducing important post-operative morbidity from infections and ascites compared to controls. Blinded, placebo-controlled confirmatory trials of higher methodological quality are warranted, especially using oral, short-term BCAAs-enriched supplements within the context of recent ERAS programs.PROSPERO registration:CRD42018086168.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicInfections and bacterial resistanceFrench-language works237,207