MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168712539 · doi:10.1024/0300-9831.76.1.34

Effects of Short-Term Supplementation with Ascorbate, Folate, and Vitamins B<sub>6</sub> and B<sub>12</sub> on Inflammatory Factors and Estrogen Levels in Obese Postmenopausal Women

2006· article· en· W2168712539 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Palmas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsEstrogenEndocrinologyInternal medicineTerm (time)B vitaminsChemistryMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the effects of commonly used vitamins on serum inflammatory markers and the hormonal balance in obese postmenopausal women. We studied the effects of an 8-week open-label supplementation with vitamins C (500 mg), B6 (25 mg), B12 (1 mg), and folate (5 mg) on C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and estradiol levels in 20 obese (body mass index > or = 30) postmenopausal women. Outcomes were assessed in a blinded fashion. Folate and vitamin B12 levels rose significantly, suggesting that the supplement was well absorbed and that participants adhered to the protocol. Weight, blood pressure, and serum lipids remained stable. C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and leptin levels remained unchanged. Estradiol levels rose from a median of 22.0 pg/mL (IQR = 15.9-25.8) at baseline to a median of 27.8 pg/mL (IQR = 23.1-33.9) at follow-up (p = 0.003). Increments in serum estradiol caused by vitamin supplementation in postmenopausal women have not been previously described and probably merit further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition ResearchSame topicNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorFrench-language works237,207