MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984892263 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v3n2p69

The Effect of Vitamin C and E on Lipid Profile in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients

2011· article· en· W1984892263 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zahra Rafighi, Shahin Arab, Rokia mohd yusof, Atena Shiva

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin C and Antioxidants Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsGlycated hemoglobinMedicineLipid profileInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusVitamin EPlaceboType 2 Diabetes MellitusHemoglobinEndocrinologyBlood lipidsCholesterolType 2 diabetesVitamin CBiochemistryChemistryAntioxidantPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most common metabolic disorders that cause micro- and macro-vascular complications. Because of cardiovascular disease is common in T2DM, lipid abnormalities should be evaluated in diabetes. As vitamin C, E are known for their helpful effects on plasma lipids and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), we evaluated the effect of these vitamins on blood glucose, plasma lipids in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods: The study was carried out in 170 T2DM on consumption of vitamin C, E, combination of C & E and placebo. The subjects comprised of two main groups, supplementation and placebo group which supplementation group consists of 3 sub-groups. Each sub- group received three capsules per day for a period of three months. HbA1c, glucose and lipid profile were determined in baseline and after three months with receiving supplement.Results: A significant decrease in FBS, TG, LDL, cholesterol and HbA1c was seen in the supplemented groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that patients with T2DM after three months consumption of vitamins C, E and C&E showed significantly lowered hypertension and improved insulin action and decrease lipid profile.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicVitamin C and Antioxidants ResearchFrench-language works237,207