Blood pressure and endothelial function in healthy, pregnant women after acute and daily consumption of flavanol-rich chocolate: a pilot, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) indicate that flavanol-rich chocolate has beneficial effects on flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and blood pressure (BP). However, no RCTs have evaluated these outcomes in pregnant women. The objective of this 2-group, parallel, double-blind RCT was to examine the effects of flavanol-rich chocolate on FMD and BP in pregnant women with normal BP. METHODS: Forty-four healthy, pregnant women were randomized to the high-flavanol (n = 23) or low-flavanol (n = 21) chocolate consumption for 12 weeks. At randomization (0, 60, 120 and 180 min after a single 40-g dose of chocolate), 6 and 12 weeks after daily 20-g chocolate intake, we evaluated plasma concentrations of flavanols and theobromine, as well as the FMD and BP. RESULTS: Plasma epicatechin was significantly increased (p < 0.001) 180 min after the consumption of 40-g high-flavanol chocolate compared to low-flavanol chocolate. Theobromine concentrations were significantly higher 180 min and 12 weeks after the intake of experimental chocolate or low-flavanol chocolate (p < 0.001). FMD was not different between the 2 groups at all pre-defined time periods. No other significant within-group or between-group changes were observed. CONCLUSION: These results confirm the feasibility of a large-scale RCT comparing daily consumption of flavanol-rich chocolate to an equivalent placebo during pregnancy and demonstrate higher plasma epicatechin and theobromine concentration in the intervention group after acute ingestion TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01659060.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".