MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased glucose tolerance in Type II Diabetics treated with a citrus extract: A pilot study

2008· article· en· W2277813560 on OpenAlexaff
William V. Judy, WILLIS W. STOGSDILL, Daniel Judy, Jan Judy, Malkanthi Evans, J. Lloyd, Najla Guthrie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNatural Antidiabetic Agents Studies
Canadian institutionsKGK Synergize (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineHemoglobinType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusPopulationClinical trialGastroenterologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetinol™, a dietary supplement, was tested in a placebo controlled clinical trial for its ability to improve the glucose tolerance of subjects when presented with a standard oral glucose challenge. Subjects were males and females between the ages of 18 and 75 with fasting glucose levels between 109.8mg/dl and 162mg/dl. Twenty subjects were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups and received either Diabetinol™ (2x525mg/day) or a placebo (2x525mg/day) for 84 days. Control data was collected on day 0 and was compared against experimental data collected on days 28, 56 and 84 of the study. A significant (p<0.01) 19% reduction in glucose intolerance was observed in the Diabetinol™ treatment group after 84 days while no significant changes were observed in the placebo group. No statistically significant changes to the fasting plasma glucose or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of either group were observed during this study; however, a downward trend was seen in the HbA1c levels of Diabetinol™‐treated subjects. These results suggest that when administered over a longer treatment period, Diabetinol™ significantly reduces glucose intolerance in individuals with Type II Diabetes. Additional studies on the efficacy of Diabetinol™ in Type II Diabetics will be conducted in a larger sample population over a 6‐month treatment period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicNatural Antidiabetic Agents StudiesFrench-language works237,207