CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-26. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v0.8.
Verdict No. 2966 · Search date 2026-08-26 · Methodology v0.8

Camu-camu fruit extract, 1.5 g/day,
does it really help with Reduced liver fat after 12 weeks in overweight adults with elevated triglycerides?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 54 · Safety caution
Relative liver-fat change improved, but the median absolute reduction was about 1.6 points in a 30-person completer analysis
One of five withdrawals followed mild gastrointestinal discomfort considered possibly capsule-related. No systematic adverse-event table or arm-specific serious-event counts were reported, leaving a safety-data gap.
What the
research shows
Grade C. In a 35-participant crossover trial, the 30 completers had relative MRI liver-fat changes of -7.43% with camu-camu versus +8.42% with placebo, a between-treatment relative difference of -15.85% (P=.003). The median absolute HFF reduction was about 1.6 percentage points, and no confidence interval for this effect was reported.
What the
ads claim
The -15.85% value is a relative-change contrast, not a 15.85-point absolute reduction. It should be paired with the approximately 1.6-point median absolute HFF reduction.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Camu-camu is an extract of Myrciaria dubia fruit.
  • The trial used 1.5 g/day for 12 weeks.
  • The endpoint was MRI liver fat, not a clinical liver event.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2966 · C 54
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

NCT04130321 randomized 35 overweight adults with elevated fasting triglycerides to the order of camu-camu and placebo in a double-blind crossover trial. Each period lasted 12 weeks with a washout. Thirty participants completed both intervention periods, but the primary MRI liver-fat analysis included 20 participants in the camu-camu period and 25 in the placebo period. This is a key limitation of the positive result. The prespecified hepatic-steatosis outcome used the mean MRI HFF from five regions per participant. Funding came from the W. Garfield Weston Foundation's Weston Family Microbiome Initiative and CIHR. The paper did not report manufacturer funding, free product, commercial analysis, medical writing, or publication support. A. Marette disclosed a Pfizer-CIHR research chair and Y. Desjardins an NSERC-Diana Food industrial research chair.

02

Why this is classified as C (54)

The positive publicly funded result is limited by a surrogate endpoint and one 35-person study. Thirty participants completed both intervention periods, but the primary MRI liver-fat analysis included 20 in the camu-camu period and 25 in the placebo period. This is a key limitation of the positive result, giving C with 54 points.

Counterpoint. The verdict is limited to this extract, dose, duration, and MRI endpoint. Verdict 2962 is D with 34 points (/en/verdicts/liver/high-dose-green-tea-extract-liver-safety/) for high-dose green-tea-extract liver safety, showing why different plant extracts cannot be treated as one intervention.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Positive MRI liver-fat result and public funding, limited by a surrogate endpoint, completer analysis, and small sample

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointSSurrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced MRI liver fat at 12 weeksCThe relative difference was -15.85%, P=.003, but the endpoint was an imaging surrogate.

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial30Public/nonprofit funding from the Weston Family Microbiome Initiative and CIHRChange from baseline in MRI hepatic fat fraction-7.43% vs +8.42%; relative difference -15.85%, P=.003; median absolute HFF reduction about 1.6 points; CI not reportedSingle small imaging-endpoint trial
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).

Marette A, et al. Camu-camu decreases hepatic steatosis and liver injury markers in overweight, hypertriglyceridemic individuals: a randomized crossover trial. Cell Rep Med. 2024;5:101682. PMID: 39168095.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Benefit of Camu-Camu Extract for 12-Week MRI Liver Fat Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Benefit of Camu-Camu Extract for 12-Week MRI Liver Fat — Evidence Grade C·54. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/liver/camu-camu-hepatic-fat-fraction/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.