Effects of formulation on the bioavailability of lutein and zeaxanthin: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over, comparative, single-dose study in healthy subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lutein and zeaxanthin are macular pigments with a protective function in the retina. These xanthophylls must be obtained from the diet or added to foods or supplements via easy-to-use, stable formulations. The technique employed to produce these formulations may affect the bioavailability of the xanthophylls. METHODS: Forty-eight healthy volunteers were randomized into this double-blind, cross-over study investigating the plasma kinetics of lutein provided as two different beadlet formulations. Subjects (n = 48) received a single dose of 20 mg of lutein as either a starch-matrix ("SMB", FloraGLO® Lutein 5 %) or as a cross-linked alginate-matrix beadlet ("AMB", Lyc-O-Lutein 20 %) formulation. Plasma concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin were measured at 0, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 24, 26, 28, 32, 36, 48, 72, 168, and 672 h. RESULTS: The mean plasma AUC(0-72h), AUC(0-672h), and C(max) for total lutein and zeaxanthin and their all-E-isomers were significantly increased (p < 0.001) from pre-dose concentrations in response to SMB and AMB. There was no difference in lutein T max between the two test articles. However, by 14 h post-dose, total plasma lutein increased by 7 % with AMB and by 126 % with SMB. Total lutein AUC(0-72h) and AUC(0-672h) were 1.8-fold and 1.3-fold higher, respectively, for SMB compared to AMB. Both formulations were well tolerated by subjects in this study. CONCLUSION: These findings confirm that the bioavailability of lutein and zeaxanthin critically depends on the formulation used and document a superiority of the starch-based over the alginate-based product in this study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".