Safety and Health Benefits of Novel Dietary Supplements Consisting Multiple Phytochemicals, Vitamins, Minerals and Essential Fatty Acids in High Fat Diet Fed Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to determine safety and efficacy of health supplements "Beyond Tangy Tangerine," a multivitamin/mineral complex and combination of multivitamin/mineral complex, "Osteofx," a bone healthy supplement and "Ultimate Essential Fatty Acids" in Sprague Dawley rats consuming high-fat diets. Initially a pilot study was conducted which confirmed palatability and acceptability of supplements. In a second study, rats (n = 15/group) were randomized to Control; Multivitamin/mineral complex (2 g/kg BW) or Combination (2 g Multivitamin/mineral complex, 1.5 g Bone healthy supplement and 0.34 g Essential fatty acids/kg BW). No differences were observed in BW change, feed intake, organ weights or bone mineral composition with supplementations compared to control. Multivitamin/mineral complex supplementation decreased abdominal white adipose tissue weights (WAT) (p = .005), total (p = .033) and fat mass (p = .040), plasma IL-6 (p = .016) and ALKP (p = .038) and elevated plasma calcium (p < .001), phosphorus (p = .038), total protein (p = .002), albumin (p = .014) and globulin (p = .018), compared to control. Similarly, combination supplementation reduced WAT (p < .001), total (p = .023) and fat mass (p = .045), plasma triglycerides (p = .018), IL-6 (p = .002) and ALKP (p < .001) with increases in plasma calcium (p = .031), phosphorus (p < .001) compared to control. Results indicate that consuming either supplement can be considered safe and improves overall health by reducing inflammation, abdominal fat mass and plasma triglycerides, as well as promote bone health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".