Herbal tea in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a native herbal tea in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind study. SETTING: The Metabolic Centre at the University of Alberta Hospitals. SUBJECTS: Forty volunteers with type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: After a 1 month "run-in" period, subjects drank 250 mL/d of either the herbal tea or a placebo tea for 10 days, and were followed up for a further 4 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: A responder analysis defined as a 10% change in mean blood glucose levels based on 4 capillary glucose readings daily. Secondary end points included changes in HbA1c, fructosamine and response to a meal challenge using Ensure. RESULTS: The responder analysis showed no benefit from the herbal tea. Fructosamine levels before and after tea therapy decreased significantly in both study groups. Mean HbA1c levels and incremental areas under the glucose curve (AUC) in the meal challenge did not change in either study group. These data were reanalysed in hyperglycemic subjects with HbA1c levels greater than 120% of normal. The responder analysis and HbA1c levels did not change in either group. Mean (and standard deviation) fructosamine levels, before and after tea therapy, were significantly lower in the herbal tea group than in the placebo tea group (361 [98] versus 338 [100] micromol/L, p < 0.01 compared with 338 [60] versus 323 [49] micromol/L, p = 0.08). In the hyperglycemic subgroup the mean AUC during the meal challenge, before versus after tea therapy, was 776 (369) versus 639 (331) mmol/L (p = 0.22) in the herbal tea group and 433 (125) versus 420 (173) mmol/L (p = 0.90) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the responder analysis failed to show an effect of the herbal tea, the data suggest there may be a short-term benefit from the tea in subjects with poor glycemic control.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".