P02.123. The anti-diabetic and cholesterol-lowering effects of common and cassia cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum and C. aromaticum): a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty (50) type 2 diabetic participants were randomized to receive either 140 mg of Cinnamonforce twice daily or placebo over 13 weeks. Physical and laboratory measurements were taken at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and at the end of the trial, 13 weeks. There were no significant improvements in fasting glucose, insulin and lipid parameters between treatment and placebo groups. At endpoint, subjects in the treatment group were found to have a marginally non-significant higher fasting blood glucose level than subjects taking the placebo (p=0.085). There was a non-significant decrease in HA1c in the treatment group versus the placebo group (p=0.172). In secondary outcomes, significant differences in weight (p= 0.008), BMI (p= 0.001) and waist-to-hip ratio (p=0.020) were detected in the treatment versus placebo groups. The combination of common and cassia cinnamon do not impact fasting glucose, insulin and lipid measurements. Through power calculations, there may be an effect on HA1c, however, the sample size in this study was not sufficient to detect a trend, if any. Although secondary outcomes in this study, common and cassia cinnamon should be further investigated for weight loss.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".