[The effects of phytoestrogen on blood pressure and lipids in healthy volunteers].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of dietary soy containing phytoestrogens on blood pressure and lipids in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Two hundred thirteen healthy volunteers (108 men and 105 post-menopausal women, 50 - 76 years old) received either soy protein isolate (40 g soy protein, 118 mg isoflavones) or cassin placebo for 3 months in this randomized, double-blind trial. RESULTS: There were 34 withdrawals (16%) and 179 people (96 men and 83 women) completed the study protocol. After 3 months treatment, urinary phytoestrogens was significantly increased and blood pressure was significant reduced in soy protein group than that in cassin placebo group [mean change in systolic (-7.5 +/- 1.2) mm Hg vs. (-3.6 +/- 1.1) mm Hg, P < 0.05; diastolic: -4.3 +/- 0.8) mm Hg vs (-1.9 +/- 0.7) mm Hg, P < 0.05; mean aortic blood pressure: (-5.5 +/- 1.0) mm Hg vs (-0.9 +/- 1.0) mm Hg, P < 0.008]. Low- to high-density lipoprotein ratio [(-0.33 +/- 0.10) mmol/L vs (0.04 +/- 0.10) mmol/L, P < 0.05] and triglycerides [(-0.20 +/- 0.05) mmol/L vs (-0.01 +/- 0.05) mmol/L, P < 0.05] were significantly reduced and Lp(a) lipoprotein significantly increased [42 (17 - 67) mg/L vs 4 (22 - 31) mg/L, P < 0.05] in soy protein group compared to cassin placebo group. Total, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterols all improved in both groups and were similar between the groups. No side-effect was observed in both groups and no effect on the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis was noted in study subjects. CONCLUSION: In normotensive men and post-menopausal women, phytoestrogens intake improved blood pressure and lipids status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".