SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2025
Camel hump oil and milk vs. plant-based oils in aging-related oxidative stress and inflammation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Camel hump oil (CHO) is high in unsaturated fatty acids, tocopherols, and bioactive lipids, and it has long been used in Arabian medicine. While camel milk has been extensively studied for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, direct information on CHO anti-aging is limited. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the effects of CHO and camel milk derivative products on age-related oxidative stress and inflammation compared with plant oils. Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. An extensive search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant publications up to August 2025. We included cell, animal, and human research that evaluated therapies using CHO, camel milk (as a surrogate), or comparable plant oils (olive, camelina, and coconut). The primary outcomes were indicators of oxidative stress [superoxide dismutase (SOD) and malondialdehyde (MDA)] and inflammation. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out. Results: Of 612 data points, 11 investigations were included (2 direct CHO studies, 4 camel milk studies, and 5 plant oil studies). In animal studies, CHO improved the lipid profile and provided photoprotection against ultraviolet (UV) damage. A pooled examination of surrogate and comparative evidence revealed that therapies containing camel-derived and plant oils significantly increased SOD activity (SMD + 1.42, 95% CI: 0.85-1.99) and decreased MDA levels (SMD -1.28, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.76). A significant constraint is the reliance on camel milk as a substitute for CHO, which presents indirectness due to changes in bioactive chemical profiles. The risk of bias was moderate. Conclusion: Preclinical research suggests that camel-derived products, especially CHO, influence important aging biomarkers through antioxidant and anti-inflammatory pathways, with effect levels equivalent to or greater than those of some plant oils. However, the available research is mostly preclinical. Well-designed human clinical trials are required to test efficacy, determine dose, and confirm the translational potential of CHO in an anti-aging diet. Systematic review registration: Registered with PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251162233. It is available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251162233.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.