Effect of ursodeoxycholic acid on cholesterol absorption and metabolism in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative and quantitative changes in intraluminal bile acid composition may alter cholesterol absorption and synthesis and LDL receptor expression. In a randomized crossover design outpatient study, 12 adults aged 24-36 years took 15 mg/kg/day ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) or no bile acid supplement (control) for 20 days while being fed a controlled diet (AHA Step II). A liquid meal of defined composition was then given and luminal samples collected. Cholesterol absorption and cholesterol fractional synthetic rate (FSR) were assessed by stable isotopic methods. With UDCA treatment, bile was enriched significantly (P < 0.0001) to 40.6 +/- 2.6% (mean +/- SEM) compared with 2.2 +/- 2.6% for controls. Regardless, plasma total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol were unchanged with UDCA treatment. Intraluminal cholesterol solubilized in the aqueous phase during the entire collection was decreased (P = 0.012) in UDCA-treated subjects (101.0 +/- 7.2 mg/ml/120 min) compared with controls (132.5 +/- 7.2 mg/ml/120 min.). Percent micellar cholesterol was increased in UDCA-treated versus controls after meal ingestion. No changes were found in cholesterol absorption, FSR, or LDL receptor mRNA with UDCA treatment compared with controls. Thus, despite marked enrichment in luminal bile with UDCA and decreased cholesterol solubilization, no differences in cholesterol absorption or metabolism are found when diet and genetic differences in absorption are carefully controlled.
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) | 0.001 | 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".