Effects of Flax Fiber on Laxation and Glycemic Response in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether a flax supplement taken orally or baked in a bakery product would effect the physiological responses characteristic of soluble and insoluble fiber, i.e., laxation and glycemic response, respectively. In Study 1, 26 healthy young adults consumed up to 15 g of fiber from a proprietary flax fiber supplement or as a psyllium supplement for 2 weeks once usual fecal weights were established. Changes in dietary fiber intake and acceptability of both products were evaluated. An increase in fecal weight was found with both fiber treatments. Supplemental fiber at intakes of 9.0 g/day (flax) and 10.4 g/day (psyllium) gave fecal bulking capacity of about 2.9 and 4.8 g of fecal weight/g of fiber, respectively. In Study 2, the effect of flax bread versus control white bread on glycemic response was studied. Eleven fasting subjects completed four test periods (duplicate trials of each bread) under standardized glycemic testing conditions. Paired t tests were used to analyze test compared with control peak blood glucose values (6.6 +/- 0.9 mmol/L compared with 6.9 +/- 0.7 mmol/L, P < .05, respectively) and area under the curve (AUC) (669 +/- 53 compared with 693 +/- 57, P = .015, respectively). Peak blood glucose values and AUC were improved by ingestion of flax fiber in healthy subjects. In conclusion, a flax fiber supplement provides the benefits of soluble and insoluble fiber.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".