Determination of plasma and leukocyte ascorbate concentrations in a randomized, double‐blind trial (830.3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasma ascorbate reflects recent intake, whereas leukocyte ascorbate more closely reflects cellular stores and total body pool. Objective was to evaluate the bioavailability of ascorbate in plasma and leukocytes from a novel vitamin C formulation. In this double‐blind, cross‐over, males and females between 18‐60 years were randomized to receive one of the following: Placebo (P, 0mg vitamin C), Ascorbic Acid (AA, 1000mg vitamin C) or Ester‐C ® (EC, 1000mg vitamin C + threonate and furanone) as a single dosage. Plasma and leukocyte ascorbate were measured at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours following treatment. An intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted on thirty six subjects (18 males, 18 females). Plasma ascorbate percent change from Baseline was significantly higher for EC and AA at 2 hours compared to P (EC=135.55±176, AA=126.60±135, P=2.35±33; p<0.001). At 4, 8, and 24 hours the percent change from Baseline was only significantly higher for EC compared to P (all p蠄0.035). The percent change in leukocyte ascorbate was significantly higher from Baseline for EC at 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours (all p蠄0.041) and P at 4 and 24 hours (p蠄0.035) but there was no change from Baseline for the AA group. Vitamin C from Ester‐C and Ascorbic Acid has greater plasma bioavailability than Placebo. Compared to Baseline, Ester‐C ® provides a higher percent change in leukocyte ascorbate, which may be due to the presence of threonate and furanone in the formula.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".