High Dose Flaxseed Oil Supplementation May Affect Fasting Blood Serum Glucose Management in Human Type 2 Diabetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes is characterized partially by elevated fasting blood serum glucose and insulin concentrations and the percentage of hemoglobin as HbA1c. It was hypothesized that each of blood glucose and its co-factors insulin and HbA1c and would show a more favorable profile as the result of flaxseed oil supplementation. Patients were recruited at random from a population pool responding to a recruitment advertisement in the local newspaper and 2 area physicians. Completing the trial were 10 flaxseed oil males, 8 flaxseed oil females, 8 safflower (placebo) oil males and 6 safflower oil females. Patients visited on two pre-treatment occasions each three months apart (visits 1 and 2). At visit 2 subjects were randomly assigned in double blind fashion and in equal gender numbers to take flaxseed oil or safflower oil for three further months until visit 3. Oil consumption in both groups was approximately 10 g/d. ALA intake in the intervention group was approximately 5.5 g/d. Power was 0.80 to see a difference of 1 mmol of glucose /L using 12 subjects per group with a p < 0.05. Flaxseed oil had no impact on fasting blood serum glucose, insulin or HbA1c levels. It is concluded that high doses of flaxseed oil have no effect on glycemic control in type 2 diabetics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".