Bioavailability of Vitamins E and C: Does <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Infection Play a Role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the association between bioavailability of vitamins E and C and Helicobacter pylori infection has been extensively researched in gastritis and gastric cancer patients, little is known about this relationship in asymptomatic adults. AIM: To investigate the effect of H. pylori infection on bioavailability of vitamins E and C in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: Volunteers from the University of Toronto, aged 18-45 years, were screened, for their H. pylori infection status. H. pylori-negative (n = 32) and asymptomatic H. pylori-positive (n = 27) participants received vitamin C (500 mg) and vitamin E (400 IU) supplements daily for 28 days. Plasma vitamins C, E and thiols concentrations were assessed before (baseline) and after supplementation. RESULTS: Postsupplementation plasma levels of vitamin C and E were significantly higher than presupplementation levels in both groups. Yet, changes in plasma vitamins E and C were not significantly different between the two groups [vitamin C (mumol/l): 13.97 +/- 16.86 vs. 20.87 +/- 27.66, p > 0.05; vitamin E (mumol/l): 15.52 +/- 9.4 vs. 14.47 +/- 15.77; p > 0.05 for H. pylori-negative and H. pylori-positive groups, respectively]. In addition, no significant difference was found in plasma thiols levels between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that H. pylori does not influence antioxidants bioavailability in its asymptomatic stages of infection until a factor or combination of factors triggers the inflammation cascade which may lead to increased oxidative stress and possibly reduced bioavailability of vitamins E and C.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".