Effect of Wheat Bran on Glycemic Control and Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cohort studies indicate that cereal fiber reduces the risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). Therefore, we assessed the effect of wheat bran on glycemic control and CHD risk factors in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 23 subjects with type 2 diabetes (16 men and 7 postmenopausal women) completed two 3-month phases of a randomized crossover study. In the test phase, bread and breakfast cereals were provided as products high in cereal fiber (19 g/day additional cereal fiber). In the control phase, supplements were low in fiber (4 g/day additional cereal fiber). RESULTS: Between the test and control treatments, no differences were seen in body weight, fasting blood glucose, HbA(1c), serum lipids, apolipoproteins, blood pressure, serum uric acid, clotting factors, homocysteine, C-reactive protein, magnesium, calcium, iron, or ferritin. LDL oxidation in the test phase was higher than that seen in the control phase (12.1 +/- 5.4%, P < 0.034). Of the subjects originally recruited, more dropped out of the study for health and food preference reasons from the control phase (16 subjects) than the test phase (11 subjects). CONCLUSIONS: High-fiber cereal foods did not improve conventional markers of glycemic control or risk factors for CHD in type 2 diabetes over 3 months. Possibly longer studies are required to demonstrate the benefits of cereal fiber. Alternatively, cereal fiber in the diet may be a marker for another component of whole grains that imparts health advantages or a healthy lifestyle.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it