MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glycemic and Blood Pressure Responses to Acute Doses of Rebaudioside A, a Steviol Glycoside, in Subjects with Normal Glucose Tolerance or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2009· article· en· W2289967555 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin C. Maki, Leslie L. Curry, James M. McKenney, Mildred V. Farmer, Matthew S. Reeves, Mary R. Dicklin, John E. Gerich, Bernard Zinman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRebaudioside AStevia rebaudianaPostprandialInternal medicineMedicineGlycemicSteviosidePlaceboCrossover studySteviolEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusBlood pressureType 2 diabetesPharmacologyChemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steviol glycosides, predominantly stevioside and rebaudioside A, extracted from the plant Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni, are used in several countries as food sweetening agents. This randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled crossover trial examined the glycemic and blood pressure responses during meal tolerance tests to rebaudioside A consumed at three doses (500 mg, 750 mg, and 1000 mg) by men and women with normal glucose tolerance (n=45) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=48). Incremental areas under the concentration curves (pre‐meal to 240 min) for glucose, insulin, C‐peptide, and glucagon did not differ significantly for any dose of rebaudioside A tested vs. placebo or for all rebaudioside A doses combined vs. placebo. There were no significant differences between placebo and rebaudioside A in the effects on postprandial systolic or diastolic blood pressures. Rebaudioside A was well tolerated at all doses. These results suggest that acute consumption of up to 1000 mg of rebaudioside A has no clinically important acute effects on glucose homeostasis or blood pressure among individuals with normal glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Funded by Cargill Corporation (Wayzata, MN).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207