Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical study on the effect of Diabetinol® on glycemic control of subjects with impaired fasting glucose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the efficacy of Diabetinol(®) in people with diabetes on medication but not meeting the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid targets. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty subjects, aged 18-75 years, with fasting blood glucose ≤15.4 mmol/L, hemoglobin A1c levels ≤12%, and a body mass index between 25 and 40 kg/m(2), were enrolled in a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study. Diabetinol(®) or placebo was administered as 2×525 mg capsules/day. RESULTS: In the Diabetinol(®) group, 14.3% versus 0% in the placebo group, 33.3% versus 15.4% in placebo, 20.0% versus 12.5% in placebo, and 83.3% versus 60% in placebo achieved the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American Diabetes Association targets for hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure, respectively. There was no difference in the maximum concentration (Cmax) of serum glucose or area under the curve (AUC)0-240 minutes. The time to Cmax was longer for participants on Diabetinol(®) than placebo group at week 12 (P=0.01). Fasting blood glucose increased from baseline to week 24 in both groups; however, this increase was 14.3 mg/dL lower in the Diabetinol(®) group versus placebo. The Diabetinol(®) group showed an increase of 5.53 mg/dL in fasting insulin at week 12 (P=0.09) and 3.2 mg/dL at week 24 (P=0.41) over and above the placebo group. A decrease of 1.5% in total cholesterol, 5.8% in low-density lipoprotein, and a 1.6% increase in high-density lipoprotein concentrations were seen in the Diabetinol(®) group. Diabetinol(®) improved 6-month oral glucose tolerance test and 2-hour postprandial glucose profiles in participants between 40 and 60 years of age. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests a role for Diabetinol(®) as an adjunctive therapy for glycemic maintenance and for decreasing the risk of diabetes-associated comorbidities in type 2 diabetic patients on conventional therapies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".